If the Dem's get the white house will they go after high-value targets hiding in Pakistan?

Question

I think the consensus among any thinking person is that all the Al Qeida/Taliban high value targets are in Pakistan. Now I just read an article on ABC News that said the U.S. Military in Afganistan has a high-values target list that got "leaked" months ago, that showed 16 high-value targets (including Omar and Osama) as all residing in pakistan under the protection of the ISI (Pakistani Intelligence services). For some reason the current adminsitration is not willing to push mushariff to get them, or to go in without his blessing. I understand they are afraid that Mushariff would be overthrown if taht was to occur. My question is with all the Dem bluster about we should get osama and not be in Iraq, will anything be different (for the better I mean..as far as getting Omar and osama) if Hillary or one of the other Dems get in?

Answer 1

Not a chance; that crowd is all show and no go!

Answer 2

Excellent question!

I have been lectured by the left that we have to get Bin Laden, not matter where he is. Dispite the fact these same people have refused to enlist and help our country find Bin Laden, I do wish Bush followed his own policy, the Bush Doctrine.

I do understand reasons why we don't lay waste to a good 25% of Pakistan, however, I am not expecting this to be any different under any Democrat administration.

Are you kidding me? There is no way a Democrat would use the military for a military operation in Pakistan. They are full of sound and fury, no action. They are more concerned with Global Warming and gay marriage.

Answer 3

No. The reason I say this is that historically democrats aren't so quick to send troops. Some of our greatest peace makers were democrats who used diplomatic means. The current administration can't make a move on osama because they could never get the coalition to support us. We pushed our boundary's when we invaded Iraq, and the threats against Pakistan and Syria aren't helping. No, they will continue to use diplomatic pressure, and we will have a sustained military presence in the area. Hopefully we won't be fighting any more wars, but I certainly believe that we will have permenant bases in the middle east in the future.

Answer 4

If you think the cut and run party would go after anyone you're mad the current administration is in the midst of fighting two wars at the same time YES they are in Pakistan and we or anyone else would be INSANE to attack Pakistan over these fools with out the expressed permission of Musharraf and he does not want to condone this because yes he would most likely be overthrown and therefore he does not want this to happen the last thing this world needs Republican and Democrat alike is a fundamentalist government in Pakistan with the nuclear weapons we know they have. Harbor no illusions about just who the enemy is they want to die it makes no difference to them weather it is from bullet or nuclear blast so they would most likely have allot less hesitation when it comes to pressing the "bright shiny candy like button"

Answer 5

No. They'll just do the same crap Bush is doing now. Have troops scattered all around the world fighting in battles that won't "win the war on terrorism." None of our politicians will ever examine the root of many of these issues because we'd have to change our foreign policy course to the detriment of some of the largest PACs and campaign contributors. It would be political suicide for the 2-3 that would have the guts to try it.

We're stuck in status quo and help create the terrorists of tomorrow through our foreign policy and foreign government involvement.

Answer 6

The demoncratic patry has a proud tradition of retreating from foreign conflict. They will do their best to withdraw troops from anywhere they can and to avoid really addressing any foreign issues. The best they do is sending diplomats to barter with dangerous people. That is how North Korea went nuclear... technology provided by the Clinton administration.

Instead, they will wage a social war in America, trying to further errode free speech through the "fairness" doctrine and limiting public religious expression and activities, especially Christian churches and organizations.

Answer 7

For one thing, Pak/Afg plays us like fools. They regretfully know they've got our full attention but somewhat want to protect themselves and Taliban know matter what most people belive. I'm A RD but I don't think the new Dem controlled gov will have any more luck neutralizing AQ/T than the Republicans.

Answer 8

I remember the 'Greatest Democrat' since FDR saying three times, 'We will find those responsible and bring them to justice'. Who did he find? A low level cleric and a couple of henchmen.

I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for Democrats to make any moves against high-value targets in Afghanistan. Their idea if a high value target is a special interest group they can get to vote for them. And none of them are in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Answer 9

Hussein interior the White living house. no longer even an intensive race. He has completed greater to wreck us in a hundred days than the Taliban and Al Queda have been able to end of their mixed histories.

Answer 10

If the Dems take the white house they will try to reason with the unreasonable terrorist. Peace talks almost never work. Everyone must realize the terrorists don't want to talk, they want us dead.

We must finish one war before we start another.

Answer 11

its the general way of modern thinking to not push countries with nukes too hard .. u have to get them to cooperate ...worrying about radicals in a country on the other side of the world is about pointless to imo ... the only thing u do by worrying about them or going after them is turn about 5 times as many more people over ther to US-haters ..