[Malum Prohibitum]

The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.

"Let me make this clear," Obama said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Associated Press

Has he just lost the anti-war vote? :lol:

 

[M249]

As much as I want to give AQ a swift kick in the wedding tackle, sending troops into Pakistan a very bad idea.

This just confirms what I already believed to be true: Obama is damn charismatic, but he doesn't know what he doesn't know. I'd love to sit and have a beer with the guy, though.

 

[rajl]

Does this mean all the conservatives can hold anti-war protests and dress in funny clothes while holding signs with catchy slogans? :roll:

 

[viper32cm]

At least India will really like us. They might even help.

 

[tony218]

but what about all the PATELS in this country?

 

[rajl]

Patel is an Indian name. It's the 2nd most common surname in India, after Singh. I think all the Patel's here in the US would LOVE it. :twisted:

 

[tony218]

oh, ok i've met a few that said they were from PAKISTAN.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Does this mean all the conservatives can hold anti-war protests and dress in funny clothes while holding signs with catchy slogans? :roll:

NO BLOOD FOR PERSIAN RUGS!

 

[Thorsen]

I think we should go after terrorists wherever they are located, to include Pakistan. I also realize that doing so would destabalize the current dictatorship there, most likely resulting in the government being reconstituted as a type of theocracy. A theocracy that hates America and has nuclear weapons.

I still think we should go in and do the job since Musharraf is most definitely not up to the task, I just know that we have to be willing to accept the consequences.

I know a nuclear attack on our soil is a matter of when not if. I think we should clearly articulate to the world that any nuclear, biological or chemical attack on our soil will result in a full scale reprisal with nuclear weapons, much as we did when we were facing down the Soviet Union. The world will not believe us until the first attack occur and we respond to that attack, but I think we should respond harshly and with nuclear weaponry. Only then will the countries that harbor these groups fear us enough to actually eradicate the terrorists in their midst.

This gives rise to an argument: whether it is better to be loved than feared, or the opposite. The answer is that one would like to be both, but since it is difficult to combine the two it is much safer to be feared than loved, if one of the two has to make way. For generally speaking, one can say the following about men: they are ungrateful, inconsistent, feigners and dissimulators, avoiders of danger, eager for gain, and whilst it profits them they are all yours. They will offer you their blood, their property, their life and their offspring when your need for them is remote. But when your needs are pressing, they turn away. The prince who depends entirely on their words perishes when he finds he has not taken any other precautions. This is because friendships purchased with money and not by greatness and nobility of spirit are paid for, but not collected, and when you need them they cannot be used. Men are less worried about harming somebody who makes himself loved than someone who makes himself feared, for love is held by a chain of obligation which, since men are bad, is broken at every opportunity for personal gain. Fear, on the other hand, is maintained by a dread of punishment which will never desert you.

--Niccolo Machiavelli

 

[rajl]

oh, ok i've met a few that said they were from PAKISTAN.

Doesn't surprise me if there are Patels from/in Pakistan. There are still a large number of Hindus in Pakistan and Muslims in India. Pakistan and India used to be the same country. But every Patel I've met has been from India (now all the Ahmeds i've met....). I digress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patel

 

[ptsmith24]

Does this mean all the conservatives can hold anti-war protests and dress in funny clothes while holding signs with catchy slogans? :roll:

NO BLOOD FOR PERSIAN RUGS!

:lol:

 

[rajl]

Does this mean all the conservatives can hold anti-war protests and dress in funny clothes while holding signs with catchy slogans? :roll:

NO BLOOD FOR PERSIAN RUGS!

Or

No Pakistan without an exit plan. :?

or

No moolah to fight the mullahs! :roll:

or

Take a stand, don't fight for sand. uke:

I'll go back to my day job now.

 

[ptsmith24]

:shock: :lol:

 

[Tinkerhell]

On Obama - a smart man doesn't really tell his enemies what he is going to do ahead of time.... :roll:

On the whole terrorist jihadi against everyone but us kind of thing I'm really getting to the point that my new philosophy is

 

[viper32cm]

Regardless of ones feelings towards Pakistan just imagine how bad invading an ally would be for our "international reputation/image."

 

[Adam5]

I would not spend the billions of dollars that would be involved or waste th elives of American Soldiers to invade Pakistan. Looking for Bin Laden is bad justification, no one even knows if he is still alive. Assisting the Pakastani gvt in raiding/carpet bombing "terror training camps" or raiding them on our own is one thing, but invading Pakastan, at this point in time, is going a little too far.

 

[Ashe]

But is Pakistan really an Ally of the Muslim world?

Obama plays it down but he is a Muslim, he went to the same type of schools that turned out OBL and thousands of other terrorists.

 

[phaed]

i don't much care for obama. but, i respect him for saying this. too many people are spinning it though.

 

[merlock]

I would not spend the billions of dollars that would be involved or waste th elives of American Soldiers to invade Pakistan. Looking for Bin Laden is bad justification, no one even knows if he is still alive. Assisting the Pakastani gvt in raiding/carpet bombing "terror training camps" or raiding them on our own is one thing, but invading Pakastan, at this point in time, is going a little too far.

+1

 

[foshizzle]

What would Ron Paul do? :-k