Obama will invade the Northwestern Territory of Pakistan...If he is not stopped

[JCarter426]

I don't like to deal in what-ifs, but I highly doubt that Gore would have gone into Iraq. The Bush administration was actively looking for a good reason to invade the country, and I don't think that was part of Gore's agenda.

[Jvstice]

Oh so you're taking Hil and Obama at their words, but Mc Cain, you inject your speculation and it's fine. I mean by Obama's standards we're not really fighting Iraq anymore, only regions of Iraq.

 

McCain has said if there were NO deaths he wouldn't mind us staying, but that isn't likely to happen. Besides, unless they change the Constitution, and up McCain's lifespan, 100 more years isn't something we're going to see.

I'm taking McCain at his word too. He's said he supports being in Iraq, supports the surge, and thinks that it needs to be taken to a greater degree than Bush has voted for, and that we need to actually listen to our generals. I do think much of our handling of Iraq would improve with him in regard to listening to the troops and listening to our generals for a change rather than firing them whenever they say something that he doesn't want ot hear like Bush has done.

 

My objection to McCain is that he thinks it's still winnable there and only makes assumptions on our future course of actions on the assumption that we will eventually be successful. His saying that the surge is worth doing and that we need to send more than Bush and Cheney support is evidence of this. His own words.... not speculation as you've accused me of.

 

To be honest I voted against Clinton both times, and for Bush both. In Bush's case I saw both Bush elections as a choice between someone who won't defend us vs someone who's looking for a fight. I thought the war with Iraq was a bad fight to pick at the time, but did go with Bush because once picked I thought it was stupid to lower your guard when you've already provoked someone to the point where they want you dead. So I'll admit I'm late to the anti - war movement, because I generally oppose a lot of their other, related stands, though I generally agreed that it was a stupid irrelevant fight to pick to the war on terror from the get go.

 

Don't forget Osama bin Laden and his cronies. If the US send troops into Pakistan, don't you think they would call it an invasion as well? It could be just the thing to help rally up the insurgent base, if you will.

 

If Pakistan doesn't want our troops to go there or if our bombs to be dropped on their territory, then I think we should actually respect their wishes instead of going against them. [This could mean that if Obama gets Pakistan's premission, then we can send in troops, but it is rather unlikely Obama will get Pakistan's premission, because Pakistan want to keep control of its own territory and security.]

 

Yes, the current Bush regime is doing bombing secretly, but that's the thing: It is secret. It is secret because if it was public, like what Obama is proposing, then Pakistan will get even more angry. And it is also low-key, not at all what Obama is implying.

 

EDIT: Anyway, I want to try and drum up opposition to Obama's plan without calling it an invasion (which it isn't), but rather, a violation of national soverignty. It's pretty hard to do so though, so I made several mistakes when stating 'invasion' when I really didn't mean to, but I hope you understand what I am trying to state: What Obama proposed is bad, and it is even more bad because he is willing to do so pubically instead of doing it in private and secretly as to not offend anyone.

 

This sort of thing happened before: Ecaudor/Veneuzla vs. Colombia for one. And, in the 1990's, Rwanda got in trouble with Congo when Rwanda sent its troops to occupy Congo and hunt down Hutu rebels...which led to Rwanda and Congo fighting each other in the Second Congonese Civil War. Tensions between the two countries still exist.

 

I agree that respecting national soverignty of foriegn countries is something we should do. But we're outright occupying Iraq, Afghanistan, the Kosovo region of Bosnia/Serbia. That's such a cart before the horse arguement that we should respect the soveriegnty of other nations when our entire foriegn policy since the time of Clinton has been to run rough shod over the soveriegnty of every other nation we when we don't approve of how they handle civil matters.

[mimartin]

Again I don't think you understand, the only reason the dems are now coming out against the Iraq war(when many of them were for it, nearly unanimous) is because it's a wonderful tool to bash the Republicans for.

With an approval rating of being between 28% and 35% (depending on which poll you look at) I would say it is more than just the Democrats coming down on the war in Iraq or is the country now made up of between 64% and 62% (those that disapprove of the job President Bush is doing) Democrats. If so, I’d say the democrats are assured victory come November. No, even those that voted for Mr. Bush are coming down on him because of the mismanagement of the entire war. By the way, I do not just blame the Bush administration, I blame the Republican controlled congress at the time, I blame the Democrats in congress for not asking more questions about the “so-called” intelligence and I blame the American people for not holding all our elected officials accountable.

 

Had it been Gore in office, he would have done pretty much the same thing. Hit Afghanistan, and because we already have the support materials in the area, may as well clean up a mess from before. He would have used it as an opportunity to bash the republicans by saying that it was his job to clean up the mess we left there.

You can believe that if you wish. We will never know what would have happened under a different President. I believe Gore would have listened to the Military and not had the I know better than all of you attitude that Bush had.

[Achilles]

<snip>...and I blame the American people for not holding all our elected officials accountable.

Someone give this man a cookie!

 

You can believe that if you wish. We will never know what would have happened under a different President. I believe Gore would have listened to the Military and not had the I know better than all of you attitude that Bush had.

You mean instead of letting a neo-con think tank run things? Not sure if PNAC had anyone else but Bush in their pocket during the 2000 primaries. Gore wasn't.

 

EDIT: Both Dan Quayle and Steve Forbes have had ties to PNAC in the past. It's possible that they would have led us into Iraq as well had they secured the nomination in 2000. So PNAC had three candidates in the race. Hmmm, I guess they didn't want to risk having to wait another 4 years to get their war in Iraq.

[Ravnas]

Well Iraq has always been #1 on top U.S. Military Vacation spots in the past 15 years or so Though I doubt Quayle and Forbes would've have a chance in the 00' Election.Even Gore's slogan seemed redundant.

[JCarter426]

So PNAC had three candidates in the race. Hmmm, I guess they didn't want to risk having to wait another 4 years to get their war in Iraq.

 

Instead of trying to build a new America, why don't they focus on fixing the one we've got now?

[Achilles]

Well Iraq has always been #1 on top U.S. Military Vacation spots in the past 15 years or so Though I doubt Quayle and Forbes would've have a chance in the 00' Election.Even Gore's slogan seemed redundant.

When you consider that the same gang of guys have been in key positions in Washington for the last 30-odd years (Clinton administration excluded), I think the likelihood of that being a coincidence drops to somewhere in the neighborhood of zero. Start with Paul Wolfowitz and work your way out. Might be amazed by what you find.

 

Instead of trying to build a new America, why don't they focus on fixing the one we've got now?

It's a matter of priorities. They mean "New American Century" as in "New Century of American Political and Military Dominance in the World". Nothing in that agenda seems too concerned about silly liberal ideas of social justice, etc.