Would the military accept Obama?

[Bunz]

I missed that statement - have a link?

I am surprised you never heard this. It was big news when it came out last fall. This article is dated 8-1-07. I would be curious as to what he would have to say about it now to be honest. Pakistan has been pretty quiet on the news front since super Tuesday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801

By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama said on Wednesday the United States must be willing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan, adopting a tough tone after a chief rival accused him of naivete in foreign policy.

Obama's stance comes amid debate in Washington over what to do about a resurgent al Qaeda and Taliban in areas of northwest Pakistan that President Pervez Musharraf has been unable to control, and concerns that new recruits are being trained there for a September 11-style attack against the United States.

Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.

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

Pretty tough talk there. I wonder where else that might be applicable.

And what does the appeaser left think of that statement, when their main reference in the wars against the IFs has been "legality"?

Nobody but the most white doves among Americans question the legality or moral authority involved in using military force in Afghanistan. I wish we would have used a hell of a lot more military force there to be honest.
The issue is Iraq. They are two very different things when discussing in such matters.
Also, I have never claimed invading Iraq was illegal. Nor do I believe Obama has said that directly.

 

[Bunz]

Not many are willing to admit that Clinton was not the cause of the economic boom

Well not him specifically. But when faced in times of feast or famine, victory or defeat, and being rich or poor, the leader, by nature of being in that position takes at least some credit or guilt in everything that happens on thier watch. Even if they are not directing involved.

I am glad the Clintons are now hated because some truth of their time in office if FINALLY coming out.

Hated? well I dont know, but at least tired of them running the country.

I think he went to far gutting it, and the service paid dearly for it. It is going to happen again but on a grander scale with Obama, but I do agree the morale is low right now. but I think a lot of people are to blame for it.

the left and the right are both using the sodiers as political pawns.

I wont disagree with your chess pieces scenarios, but more than pawns, maybe a bishop.
But it is presumptious to assume Obama will do that "on a grander scale"
I hope the lessons learned through that have been learned. Although our current GOP candidate despite paying a horrible price in his honorable service to the United States doesnt seem to have learned those hard learned lesson either.

 

[Libsmasher]

I am surprised you never heard this. It was big news when it came out last fall.

Do I detect a note of sarcasm there?

This article is dated 8-1-07. I would be curious as to what he would have to say about it now to be honest. Pakistan has been pretty quiet on the news front since super Tuesday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801

Pretty tough talk there. I wonder where else that might be applicable.

Nobody but the most white doves among Americans question the legality or moral authority involved in using military force in Afghanistan. I wish we would have used a hell of a lot more military force there to be honest.
The issue is Iraq. They are two very different things when discussing in such matters.
Also, I have never claimed invading Iraq was illegal. Nor do I believe Obama has said that directly

I wasn't referring to afghanistan, I was referring to Pakistan. The appeaser left has always believed that the US needs the permission of the UN to attack anyone.

 

[Bunz]

Do I detect a note of sarcasm there?

Detect what you want from it. Somehow, I dont think it will matter what I say, you are going to believe what you want regardless.

I wasn't referring to afghanistan, I was referring to Pakistan. The appeaser left has always believed that the US needs the permission of the UN to attack anyone.

The article in question was about Pakistan. And Obama has said he would act on good intel, he said he would go in without permission of the host country if needed. You can keep vomiting your appeaser left finger pointing on everyone, but the right wing talking points, as per usual are not applicable or accurate in thier descriptions.

 

[Libsmasher]

Do I detect a note of sarcasm there?

Detect what you want from it. Somehow, I dont think it will matter what I say, you are going to believe what you want regardless.




The article in question was about Pakistan. And Obama has said he would act on good intel, he said he would go in without permission of the host country if needed. You can keep vomiting your appeaser left finger pointing on everyone, but the right wing talking points, as per usual are not applicable or accurate in thier descriptions.

The appeaser leftwing has >>FOREVER<<< ranted about an "illegal war". >>>>>>>FOREVER<<<<<<<<<<<!!!!

I just googled "iraq" and "illegal war", and got 805,000 hits. Anybody ELSE want to claim this hasn't been repeated over and over for the last five years???

 

[Bunz]

Libs, I dont really care how many hits come up. Do you have anything to offer of value in response to the other points of my previous posts?
I dont believe the war was illegal under American law. I dont know of Obama saying it was/is illegal. If he did, then please post it Id like to read it. I have looked and havent seen where he said it. Now I have heard plenty of lefties say it was illegal, especially those they are incorrect in my opinion. I am not aware of any Senator, or at least well known Congressmember who has said that. I may be incorrect on that aspect, but they are wrong the war was illegal. Immoral, inept, unnecessary, would be more accurate terms.

 

[Libsmasher]

Libs, I dont really care how many hits come up. Do you have anything to offer of value in response to the other points of my previous posts?

The only thing I'm discussing with you is Obama offering to attack pakistan under the circumstances mentioned. This is incongrous, because a VAST number of the people who support him used the "illegal war" mantra against Bush. If you can't grasp the point I'm making, just let it go.

I dont believe the war was illegal under American law. I dont know of Obama saying it was/is illegal. If he did, then please post it Id like to read it. I have looked and havent seen where he said it.

I neither said nor implied anything of the kind.

 

[Bunz]

The only thing I'm discussing with you is Obama offering to attack pakistan under the circumstances mentioned. This is incongrous, because a VAST number of the people who support him used the "illegal war" mantra against Bush. If you can't grasp the point I'm making, just let it go.

Well in my opinion, your use of VAST is inaccurate. Nothing to say about the holes I shot into your left wing appeaser assertions?

I neither said nor implied anything of the kind.

Wasnt suggesting you were, I was merely asking. I have followed Obama as closely as I could considering my access to regular news is inconsistent and could have either missed or was unaware of him saying it. I think we can agree then that Obama has never called Iraq an illegal war.