Is Obama the only candidate to seek justice for the USA?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070801/ap_on_el_pr/obama_terrorism_14

Steele - If you paid attention, I have been saying the Pakistan has been harboring terrorists for just as long.

Seeking Justice for 9/11 is socialism?

How much of an ally is Pakistan to US and how much to Al Qeda?

Lets see the Conservative/Republican logic is to invade or pursue military actions with countries with nothing to do with 9/11 but leave the countries that do alone. How Intelligent.

Answer 1

I already supported Obama, but this really cements it. This guy is logical. Al Qaeda has set up shop within a stones throw of the Afghan border and Bush is looking the other way. Conservatives are pathetic cowards for not enforcing the words of their Decider: "Those who harbor terrorists will be held accountable". If Musharraf is duty-bound to complain, so be it.

Repub with no name: Pakistan doesn't have the capability to deliver a nuke to the U.S., nor would they. They would be annihilated. They'll protest the incursion. The White House will reward them for not making too much noise. All's well that ends well.

Answer 2

Justice? If Obama happens to get elected and then charges into Pakistan to kill terrorists there, what will that accomplish? Sure, there will be fewer terrorists in Pakistan for some amount of time, but it will ultimately cause more resentment towards the west, particularly America. This will simply spawn more terrorists going forward in addition to gaining some discontent from the Pakistani government. This doesn't even address the continued burden on taxpayers, the return missions for troops, and the military's recruiting troubles. We need to pull out of Iraq, acknowledge that 2, 5, 100 years of war will not change the deeply ingrained views of Islamic militants. We need to worry about our own borders rather than trying to solve the world's problems, and we need to do so with a balanced budget. If you want justice look into republican candidate Ron Paul. He won't go charging into random nations burning billions of dollars, he will see that the budget is balanced and do his best to ensure that we won't be in a 50% tax bracket once the bulk of the baby boomers are retired. The media gets people focused on all of the wrong things...

Answer 3

I propose that the better shrink for contributions be carried out away with, and that the optimal payouts in retirement nevertheless proceed to be as they are, adjusted for inflation. Social risk-free practices isn't a "supply away" application yet one that all of us make contributions to love a mark downs plan, and could be secure against different makes use of with the help of the government. Do you compromise or disagree and why? while you're so worried approximately it then why do no longer you; first positioned it returned into the indoors maximum sector and make to have been no can take out money from it for their own pastime, 2d pay returned each and every penny you have borrowed from the two Social risk-free practices and Medicare, third take the unlawful immigrants off of it and people who come over right here yet in no way paid a penny to it, and finally have it a similar for each guy or woman; in different words government officers are to take part in it and in the event that they like some thing greater they do it on their own without the tax payers investment it?yet, the financial stytem feeding the imbalances had in no way been particularly replaced. They, a team of scholars, stated that one and all costs of pastime could be 3% or much less for each guy or woman to grow to be rich if wanted (that should be genuine additionally to taces). the main suitable financial situation could be, they stated, while there have been no costs of pastime. Why no longer attempt this answer? the rich could nevertheless be rich. My question is: while soial risk-free practices will become a difficulty linked to federal money owed, why no longer artwork with a balanced or benefit funds and spend no better than is offered in, as any kin has to try for? Why no longer ban all loobying presents as a manner to get rules that serve the country? God bless u.s..

Answer 4

I actually find the escalation of war rhetoric on both sides of the aisle to be very disturbing. I don't find this comforting at all. We need to stop spending all this money on war and start securing our borders, our ports, and all our points of entry into the country. And, then we need to help Afghanistan in a way that is similar to the Monroe doctrine that we had with Europe right after WWII. Anything short of that will create more problems with the Taliban coming back. So far we haven't done it. Afghanistan is becoming a failure. And, we need to get out of Iraq now. Invading another country should not be an option. So far our foreign policy has been one of insanity made by a bunch of sociopaths in the White House. We really don't need to carry on that mentality within the Democratic party either.

Answer 5

Of course not. Sen. Clinton's plan for Iraq includes leaving residual forces to deal with Al Queda, the borders, etc and has been in place for quite awhile. If Pakistan remains an Al Queda problem she'll deal with that too. At least this week we learned who has a better grasp on how to wield diplomacy and power, and it isn't Obama, who may make the same mistake JFK did when he first entered office, meeting with the head of Russia off the cuff, resulting in a disastrous meeting between the two. Sen. Clinton at least understands that dealing with a country which already has nuclear weapons, and is still on our side, isn't a simple endeavor and will require some very slick diplomacy on our part. I'm sorry, but his naivete is starting to scare me a little bit.

Answer 6

Besides Hilary Clinton and John Edwards, yes. The GOP is absolutely full of crap as me and you both know. George W. Bush's C average at Yale has proved his completed lackadaisical ignorance and had ruined our nation because of it. They attack Obama for trying to injure Pakistan’s nuclear weapon system, yet George bush did the same thing to Iraq. These nincompoops are looking for weaknesses in the Democratic candidates because there are very few out there. They try to say we are against God, but I call right wing conspirators the formers of the "Church of Hate". Don’t listen to these guys, we will see what the nation thinks in 2008!!

Answer 7

Do you and Obama not realize that the military entering another nation without that nation's permission is called an invasion and an act of war? Do y'all not understand that Pakistan has a nuke and is not afraid to use it to stop an invasion? And finally do y'all not realize that Pakistan is an ally in the fight on terror?

Obama is naive and should shut his mouth up before he creates a serious problem for us internationally.

Answer 8

He's gonna invade Pakistan? You spend your entire time in YA answers crucifying President Bush for Invading Iraq and now you're praising Obama for planning to invade Pakistan. Hypocrite much?

So is Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iran, UAB, Germany and England. Ready to Invade?

Answer 9

If he had a Hafro-American brain he would seek justice for the USA by killing the terrorists already here on U.S. soil.

Answer 10

Hmmm... Let me see...

So Obama critcizes Bush for his warlike actions, but it's ok for him?

Libs? Your thoughts?