http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2182955.ece
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080101233.html
Is he serious ?
I mean, come on. If the US invaded Pakistan without Pakistan's "permission", don't you think an even larger war would follow. Considering the fact that right now, the US is fighting terrorist cells and not doing that well, what makes him think he could take on a million-strong Pakistani army?
Aside from that, the international response would be atrocious. How would the UK view the States if they invaded a Commonwealth country?- Queen Elizabeth is the "Queen of Pakistan" after all. Oh and you'd piss of Canada, but thats not very important...
Who here SERIOUSLY thinks that Obama is willing to invade yet another soverign nation, fight an even bloodier war and deal with the consequences?
2007-10-09 05:29:17 · 13 answers · asked by CanadianFundamentalist 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes. Barack will "take action" against terrorists in Pakistan.
This "action" would involve violating the territory of a soverign nation and performing military actions on Pakistani soil.
Thats called an invasion.
2007-10-09 05:44:58 · update #1
It would be a "good idea" to invade Pakistan and Iran... After all, they ARE hiding terrorists and Iran is building bad things... Or so they say.
However, invasion would be impractical.
Considering that Pakistan's army is just as big as yours (at just over 1.1 million troops)...
...And considering the fact that Iran has over 11 million troops - paramilitary organizations - in Iran, EVERYONE is in the military! :-)
2007-10-09 05:57:11 · update #2
I think he spoke rashly, I hope he redeems himself soon and gives Hillary a run for her money. I am Republican by the way.
2007-10-09 05:44:08 · answer #1 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
definitely shows his total ignorance and lack of experience on international scene.
Musharraf of Pakistan may have become our Allie reluctantly but once he did there isn't much of a way back.
He's already had multiple attempts on his life and just won re-election.
Lets not forget Obamas education and lineage.
in the 30s we were taught that if you started at birth you wound up with Hitler youth that would stand and die to a man.
These early formative years are extremely important.
2007-10-09 12:44:12 · answer #2 · answered by CFB 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You mean like Dubya's plan to go to war with Iran?
No,it's not.Why?Because Obama is willing to go after those who actually attacked us on 9/11 and murdered people.Dubya,on the other hand,is willing to attack one Muslim nation after another that had absolutely nothing to with 9/11 and risk an actual intragenerational war with 2 billion Muslims.
And,as far as Great Britain is concerned,the truth is they're America's lapdog.It doesn't matter what they think,say,or do,because,at the end of the day,they'll shut up and do what they're told to do.
2007-10-09 12:35:47 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
When the Taliban decided to protect al-Caida in 2001 after 9/11, ee went in after them.
Now Bush's good friend, the dictator of Pakistan, is protecting al-Qaida. Obama is simply putting him on notice that once Bush is gone, he will either have to stop protecting al-Qaida or suffer the consequences.
Bush and the Republicans aren't willing to go after America's real enemies--there's too much profit in invading countries that never attacked us. Obama is a REAL American--and he intends to go after our real enemies, wherever they hide.
If Bush hadn't let Osama and al-Caida go free so he could invade Iraq, we wouldn't have this mess. The sooner we get him and the GOP out of the way, the sooner we can finish off al-Caida and make America safe.
2007-10-09 12:37:00 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
I don't think he wants to "invade" but I think he would take action against terrorists if he had the chance in Pakistan...
these are the guys responsible for 9-11... and if you can't understand why it would be important to eliminate them, then I don't know what else to say....
2007-10-09 12:35:34 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
No, he isn't willing to "just go in and invade it..." He said if there were credible evidence that shows specific places where Osama bin Ladin may be in Pakistan, he would go after him. Which is what Bush should do if he is really serious about terrorism. Remember this quote "I truly am not that concerned about him (Osama bin Ladin)." At least we have someone who is serious about terrorism.
2007-10-09 12:38:06 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
So your ok with Bush going to war and attack Iran, however as soon as Obama was to invade Pakistan which is also haboring terrorists, something is wrong him?
2007-10-09 12:42:05 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
He may be willing to send other people to invade Pakistan.
2007-10-09 12:43:55 · answer #8 · answered by . 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Barack Obama is making some of the most ridiculous statements ever uttered, he sounds like even he does not think he would make a good President!~!
2007-10-09 12:35:51 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
I wonder who the peace crowd is going to vote for?
2007-10-09 12:33:08 · answer #10 · answered by civil_av8r 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋