http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/01/obama-would-take-war-on-terror-into-pakistan/
WASHINGTON (CNN) –Sen. Barack Obama says he would shift the war on terror to Afghanistan and Pakistan in a speech he delivered Wednesday.
In his speech, Obama, D-Illinois, said things would look different in an Obama administration: “When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan
2007-08-01 12:18:09 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
He had a good run. Honestly, I didn't think he would last this long. In truth, I thought Hilary would have to knocke him out. Next thing I know, he imploded all on his own.
2007-08-01 12:19:07 · update #1
Do not underestimate the man.
He has been from the beginning a supporter of the war in Afghanistan, after all that was the country that provided a refuge and training grounds for the people who orchestrated the attack on us. If the head of that organization is in Pakistan and since it seems Musharraf is losing control, he is indeed correct to say, send in the troops to get the SOB. Considering Al Qaeda has restrengthened and have set up training camps again in Pakistan.
He was the ONLY sensible candidate from either party who indicated rightly that invading Iraq would be a mistake. They did not provide funding, logistics etc to the attackers on 9/11 and the piss poor excuse we used to invade Iraq is just that piss poor. A country that has nukes and has a crumbling society which is vulnerable to Al Qaeda would have been a better bet and would have had the backing of most of the world not the so called Coalition of the coerced.
All we hear about is Al Qaeda in Iraq, a group which did not exist there until the boneheaded blunder made by this current adminstration. The main players are still out there, let's actually get them.
2007-08-01 12:28:42 · answer #1 · answered by thequeenreigns 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
He wouldn't have to "shift the War on Terror." It was George Bush who shifted the War on Terror. After 9/11, we attacked Afghanistan, then deserted that war to fight in Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11.
Because of this, Al Queda grew stronger, with more members, and the Taliban also thrived. Now the fight in Afghanistan is a bitter one, with Al Queda and the Taliban going back into the rugged Pakistani mountains to avoid the international troops.
We are giving Pakistan millions of dollars in Aid. Their president has vowed to send troops to dig out Al Queda and the Taliban, but it doesn't happen. Sympathies in Pakistan are with Al Queda. Osama bin Laden is considered a hero. There has recently been civil discord in Pakistan and there is some question as to whether the president can retain his power, which doesn't include the mountainous territory where Al Queda is hiding. That area is rugged and almost impassable, with no ties to any government.
The situation in Afghanistan does need attention, and the problem there lies in the proximity of those mountains. As long as they are a haven for Al Queda, we will not have success in Afghanistan.
Our efforts there are hindered by the huge expense and troops needed for Iraq, which is bogged in a civil war. Staying there is counterproductive for the U.S., because it is simply a maelstrom of religious hatred and ageold grudges. You can't fight that with bullets.
Barrack Obama spoke the truth in his speech. Unfortunately, when a candidate speaks truth, it is twisted to try to bring him down. I don't intend to vote for Obama, but I give him credit for speaking up about the hypocrisy and waste of money in Pakistan, while Osama bin Laden gloats in complete safety.
2007-08-01 19:34:00 · answer #2 · answered by Me, Too 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree, as a supporter of Obama, I'm not for alienating Pakistan.
But I think he's got it right when he wants to finish the job and going after bin Laden. And I'm not for harboring the most wanted terrorist, which it appears Pakistan may be doing.
On one had, people criticize him for being weak on experience (although he's held public office longer than other candidates, including Clinton), and now he's trying to tell Americans that he would go after the Architect of 9/11 and you think it's the end of him?
I don't think he should have come out so strongly against Musharraf, but can we just get bin Laden and take care of those terrorists? Please? It's only making it worse everywhere else. You want to talk about emboldening the enemy, name "Public Enemy #1" then forget about him, fail to capture or kill him, and let him hide out and get stronger.
I may not agree with everything he said, but I give him props for standing up and saying lets get that SOB bin Laden!
2007-08-01 19:29:57 · answer #3 · answered by genmalia 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
“When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world’s most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.”
Sounds reasonable to me. I'd vote for him!
2007-08-01 19:31:28 · answer #4 · answered by wyldfyr 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Well I think he is being reckless considering the situation in Pakistan. We probably have the best situation we are going to get without radically configuring the regime. The Iraq war was a mistake in hindsight, but invading Pakistan would definitely spark a regional war and hurt American credibility. At least with Iraq, it had a record of violating international agreements that nobody disputed. What has Pakistan done? Not much in the eyes of the international community.
2007-08-01 19:32:19 · answer #5 · answered by The Stylish One 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Let's see: He proposed doing something that I for one would have loved to have seen George W do, which is push in the Afghani and Pakistani mountains and ferret out Osama where he was hiding. Redirect some of that firepower that's not being used in the middle of the Sunni triangle to actually kill the organization that killed 3000 of us. If that qualifies as career suicide then we're really in sad shape as a country.
2007-08-01 19:30:20 · answer #6 · answered by Deep Thought 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Well, he shot himself in the foot but at least he's honest.
He is merely saying what is truth. Iraq is not the battlefield - rather, it wasn't the battlefield until Georgie boy went after the oil..
Unfortunately, 5 years of Bush's war has worn we, the people, out. It has cost us a trillion dollars, thousands of dead and wounded young soldiers, thousands more of Iraqi's and for what? Nothing. We won't support anybody's war for a long time.
They are going to have to find another way through diplomacy, negotiation.....because the American citizens don't want anymore war....
2007-08-01 19:31:54 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yes,it makes much more sense to support a war in Iraq than a war where the terrorist actually are lol.You cons are ridiculous.
2007-08-01 19:36:57 · answer #8 · answered by Sid 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually he is probably right since OBL has been running scot free since 9/11 and we have been fooling around in a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and was no threat to us.
Senator Obama wants us to set the proper priorities. A revenge war for Dubya or get the guys that killed thousands in NYC.
2007-08-01 19:24:52 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 3⤋
Actually that's a very smart decision. He's interested in actually fighting terror, unlike most other candidates.
2007-08-01 19:24:15 · answer #10 · answered by darth_julian_ii 2 · 5⤊ 1⤋