What is Obama thinking?

Cyclonepride · 08-02-2007, 06:58 AM

It's hard to believe that a prominent front runner for president would make a public statement of this nature. Especially on that side of the aisle. Suggesting a military invasion of Pakistan won't sit well with the American public, or his supporters. I'm expecting a drop in the polls. I can't imagine that anyone would support this, especially without a strategy for successfully finishing the job in Iraq first.

BARACK'S BLUNDER | By PETER BROOKES | Opinions | Scott Stringer | Adam Brodsky

Kyle · 08-02-2007, 07:17 AM

No one is promoting a full scale invasion of Pakistan. Here's the actual quote:

Originally Posted by Barrak Obama

Let me make this clear . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, I will

This suggests to me that he will strike Al-Qaeda in Pakistan, without Pakistan's permission if needed. This would likely be an air strike, or perhaps special ops. This is far from an "invasion." I can't say I wholeheartedly approve of the way he said what he did, but it is not that far out there.

Jeremy · 08-02-2007, 07:24 AM

What he's saying is that he'd go after our actual enemy instead of just somebody that tried to kill his papa. He'd risk pissing off a country that is actually protecting Osama instead of wasting our military lives and our international reputation going after somebody that is no threat. He's doing what some in this country have forgotten that the US should be doing, leading instead of blindly killing.

And you think people would not support him for not having a strategy to complete the mission, umm what the **** have we done in Iraq? That's the biggest cluster **** this countries been in since Vietnam and there's absolutely no chance we can win. Obama should actually get a rise in the polls because he's trying to remind people that Iraq wasn't worth invading, they didn't start the war on terrror. He'd actually try defeating the enemy that brought a war to the US. That is what a leader does.

cycloneworld · 08-02-2007, 07:28 AM

Originally Posted by Jeremy

What he's saying is that he'd go after our actual enemy instead of just somebody that tried to kill his papa. He'd risk pissing off a country that is actually protecting Osama instead of wasting our military lives and our international reputation going after somebody that is no threat. He's doing what some in this country have forgotten that the US should be doing, leading instead of killing.

This statement (and this thread) are exactly why I don't like politics anymore. This is typical liberal-speak. Just bash the war without offerning any sort solution. Same goes for the Republicans but most support the war. The divide in American politics is so great and so bitter.

cycloneworld · 08-02-2007, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by Jeremy

And you think people would not support him for not having a strategy to complete the mission, umm what the **** have we done in Iraq? That's the biggest cluster **** this countries been in since Vietnam and there's absolutely no chance we can win. Obama should actually get a rise in the polls because he's trying to remind people that Iraq wasn't worth invading, they didn't start the war on terrror. He'd actually try defeating the enemy that brought a war to the US. That is what a leader does.

Pakistan didn't bring a war to the US. Nor did Afganistan. I do give Obama credit...he was against the Iraq war (and voted against it) from Day 1. All of the other democratic candidates did another 180...they supported the war at first (because it was the popular thing to do). But now that it isn't going like we had planned (and they are running for President), they are against it with force. It's pretty funny actually.

Jeremy · 08-02-2007, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by cycloneworld

Pakistan didn't bring a war to the US. Nor did Afganistan. I do give Obama credit...he was against the Iraq war (and voted against it) from Day 1. All of the other democratic candidates did another 180...they supported the war at first (because it was the popular thing to do). But now that it isn't going like we had planned (and they are running for President), they are against it with force. It's pretty funny actually.

See that's the Republican speak:) They aren't against it now because it's popular, they're against it now because the evidence has proven there was no threat and we don't need to remain there. That's called progress and understanding when you were wrong and not being blindly bull-headed.

I would agree except there isn't a black or white solution to Iraq and therefore it's not worth taking up pages of posts for me to state the way to win. The way to win is to leave so we can worry about actual threats like Iran. To suggest that we have to have a clear cut victory is to say that we'll be there for 100 years with tens of thousands of lives.

And it's not just liberal-speak as Republicans would like to suggest, it's about saving our military strength so we can use it when it's actually needed.

I agree politics are a hateful thing these days and I think both sides need to grow up. I'm not a liberal propogandist, I support the actual cause, even if the Republicans would come up with something that would help people (prolly not gonna happen).

Anyways, this is why I usually stay out of political threads, they strike a nerve with me. Just take this as my opinion and don't hate me for it

We're all still Cyclones! (we just can't sit together

)

joepublic · 08-02-2007, 07:41 AM

Originally Posted by Kyle

I can't say I wholeheartedly approve of the way he said what he did, but it is not that far out there.

I think one of his problems is that some of the things Obama says sound bad as soon as they leave his mouth. In the last debate, he sounded inexperienced when what he said made it sound like President Obama would head off to have tea and cookies with the leaders of rogue nations.

Pass the salt and pepper. Obama needs seasoning.

Incyte · 08-02-2007, 07:43 AM

Originally Posted by Jeremy

See that's the Republican speak:) They aren't against it now because it's popular, they're against it now because the evidence has proven there was no threat and we don't need to remain there. That's called progress and understanding when you were wrong and not being blindly bull-headed.

Dems oppose the war now because it's politically smart to oppose the war. It has nothing to do with "new understanding."

Love Bush or hate Bush he certainly doesn't make decisions based on political polling.

BO's opponents are hammering him on his comments. The last thing we need to do is destabilize a nuclear power.

C.John · 08-02-2007, 07:45 AM

temperflare · 08-02-2007, 07:49 AM

I like what Obama said. If a country won't do anything to prevent people from within their borders from attacking us then we will do it for them with or without their help. Sounds like something Bush said after 9/11.

I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't really matter what we do in Iraq. It doesn't matter what we do anywhere. The opposing party in congress will go great lengths to downplay ANY successes the other party has... ESPECIALLY when an election is near.

Why? If your opponent is doing a good job chances are he or she will remain in position. You will not. The name of the game in Washington is survival... at ANY cost.

erikbj · 08-02-2007, 07:51 AM

I took his speach not as invading as a war, but sending in a specialized milliatary group to take out Al-Qada (sp??) and then leave - not attacking Pakasitan, just the terrorist and then leaving.

Lets think about this, we can sending robots out into space to land on Mars or where ever we want - but we can find a couple guys hiding in the mountains using a walky talky??? I have been a hard core republican all my life, but Bush DROPPED THE BALL the past 6 years!

cycloneworld · 08-02-2007, 07:57 AM

Originally Posted by Jeremy

See that's the Republican speak:) They aren't against it now because it's popular, they're against it now because the evidence has proven there was no threat and we don't need to remain there. That's called progress and understanding when you were wrong and not being blindly bull-headed.

How is that Republican-speak? I didn't offer up any opinions, only facts.

Originally Posted by Jeremy

I agree politics are a hateful thing these days and I think both sides need to grow up. I'm not a liberal propogandist, I support the actual cause, even if the Republicans would come up with something that would help people (prolly not gonna happen).

Anyways, this is why I usually stay out of political threads, they strike a nerve with me. Just take this as my opinion and don't hate me for it We're all still Cyclones! (we just can't sit together)

I'm with you here. I get so tired of hearing the same arguments. For example...abortion. I would bet the farm that whichever of these people are elected will no absolutely nothing to further or rescind abortion rights because it is political suicide. If none of them plan on doing anything about it, THEN WHY DEVOTE SO MUCH TIME TO IT?!?! Let's talk about getting out of our $8.8 trillion debt. Let's talk about implementing an ACTUAL plan to secure our boarders. Let's talk about the skyrocketing cost of healthcare. Sure, a lot of these issues get 30 seconds cookie cutter responses but it would be great to get into a full blown discussion/debate about each one of these issues...not a 60 second answer with a 30 second rebuttal.

I try to stay out of politics as well (you're post just angered me a little

) for these reasons. How long until kickoff?

Incyte · 08-02-2007, 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by erikbj

Lets think about this, we can sending robots out into space to land on Mars or where ever we want - but we can find a couple guys hiding in the mountains using a walky talky??? I have been a hard core republican all my life, but Bush DROPPED THE BALL the past 6 years!

We certainly can take them out but the fallout on Musharof (sp?) by the Pakistanis would be severe. I don't think it's in our best interests for him to be overthrown and for a new ruling radical islamic party to have "the bomb".

cycloneworld · 08-02-2007, 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by erikbj

I took his speach not as invading as a war, but sending in a specialized milliatary group to take out Al-Qada (sp??) and then leave - not attacking Pakasitan, just the terrorist and then leaving.

Lets think about this, we can sending robots out into space to land on Mars or where ever we want - but we can find a couple guys hiding in the mountains using a walky talky??? I have been a hard core republican all my life, but Bush DROPPED THE BALL the past 6 years!

I use to be a hardcore republican, now I just call myself a conservative because there aren't many actual "conservatives" in Washington. And Bush has dropped the ball on more than one thing in the past 7 years. I'll start with the $8.8 trillion national debt he has racked up (not all his doing but a lot of it is).

I was excited when Bush was elected the first time. AND his presidency got off to a great start IMO (tax cuts, policies, etc). And now we are sitting here.

Jeremy · 08-02-2007, 08:02 AM

Well I'll just have to agree to disagree:)

Anyways, how are the Cubs doing....