CILONE/SK Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 Obama vows to hunt down terrorists By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer 30 minutes ago WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists even without local permission if warranted — an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive. 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 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." Obama's speech comes the week after his rivalry with New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton erupted into a public fight over their diplomatic intentions. Obama said he would be willing to meet leaders of rogue states like Cuba, North Korea and Iran without conditions, an idea that Clinton criticized as irresponsible and naive. Obama responded by using the same words to describe Clinton's vote to authorize the Iraq war and called her "Bush-Cheney lite." Thousands of Taliban fighters are based in Pakistan's vast and jagged mountains, where they can pass into Afghanistan, train for suicide operations and find refuge from local tribesmen. Intelligence experts warn that al-Qaida could be rebuilding here to mount another attack on the United States. Musharraf has been a key ally of Washington in fighting terrorism since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, but has faced accusations from some quarters in Pakistan of being too closely tied to America. The Bush administration has supported Musharraf and stressed the need to cooperate with Pakistan, but lately administration officials have suggested the possibility of military strikes to deal with al-Qaida and its leader, Osama bin Laden. Analysts say an invasion could risk destabilizing Pakistan, breeding more militancy and undermining Musharraf. The Pakistani Foreign Office, protective of its national sovereignty, has warned that U.S. military action would violate international law and be deeply resented. A military invasion could be risky, given Pakistan's hostile terrain and the suspicion of its warrior-minded tribesmen against uninvited outsiders. Congress passed legislation Friday that would tie aid from the United States to Islamabad's efforts to stop al-Qaida and the Taliban from operating in its territory. President Bush has yet to sign it. Obama's speech was a condemnation of President Bush's leadership in the war on terror. He said the focus on Iraq has left Americans in more danger than before Sept. 11, and that Bush has misrepresented the enemy as Iraqis who are fighting a civil war instead of the terrorists responsible for the attacks six years ago. "He confuses our mission," Obama said, then he spread responsibility to lawmakers like Clinton who voted for the invasion. "By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences." Obama said that as commander in chief he would remove troops from Iraq and putting them "on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan." He said he would send at least two more brigades to Afghanistan and increase nonmilitary aid to the country by $1 billion. He also said he would create a three-year, $5 billion program to share intelligence with allies worldwide to take out terrorist networks from Indonesia to Africa. I really hate all this election tough guy bullshit. This is just fucking stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 the notion of wanting to send american troops in to pakistan from afghanistan is reminding me of u.s. incursions into cambodia from vietnam. i do think these terrorist sanctuaries and their leaders should be captured or killed though, but an invasion in to pakistan may open up a whole new can of worms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted August 1, 2007 Author Share Posted August 1, 2007 Also, alot of people do not realize that Parkistan is a nuclear power. If we do not respect their sovereignty or we destabilize their government, what is to say they do not use their nuc's or that someone else gets the? I have been to the boarder of afghanistan and pakistan and I have no doubt in my mind that the taliban and alqueda fighters are using that as base of operations. I just do not think that we need to go there without pakistans permission. Obama playing the tough guy with someone elses ass on the line is just stupid. I liked him before he said all this, now I am going to rethink that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 jesus. your spelling skills say you were an army grunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted August 1, 2007 Author Share Posted August 1, 2007 jesus. your spelling skills say you were an army grunt. Yep. I will never say I can spell good, but I do know what I am talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 Yep. I will never say I can spell good, but I do know what I am talking about. fair enough. i'm just sayin'....the army isn't too particular. i'm gonna go ahead and tell you, i'm just messing around with you. no harm intended Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted August 1, 2007 Author Share Posted August 1, 2007 I know. I also know I can not spell worth a damn too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted August 1, 2007 Author Share Posted August 1, 2007 What I am really pissed at is that i can not remember my password for my old ID. Now it looks like I am brand new here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 ask a moderator to retrieve it for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted August 1, 2007 Author Share Posted August 1, 2007 I did. I am waiting. I haven't been on here for three years. I was CILONE/SK before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thinksmall Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 i think its just a coverup to make the election seem more believable or give an opposite candidate more attention. obama is in the Council On Foreign Relations with hilary clinton. funny thing is they have a black guy and a woman running, its like the perfect combo and back up candidates on the republican side. their just using terrorism as a way to get rid of the countries that would be against the nwo and fight against it (they try to make friends with the more powerful countries). a lot of terrorism isnt real, it benefits the nwo's goals more than the guys who do it. freedom fighters just want their freedom, so why would you take ours away instead of give them theirs. its not like they just got bored and went like 'i kinda hate america, lets blow up two skyscrapers'. but evidence points that the terrorism that happened was plotted by the nwo. so =/ wars dont happen because of retaliation. every intelligent guy knows that retaliation doesnt solve problems it just makes half the guys more happy. its a way to make ignants agree with a war. theres a lot of ignants. so =/ and once the war starts.. everyone just starts 'supporting the troops'. ignants. these candidates are either really stupid or just working at some evil goal. they keep picking at the whole terrorism bullshit to make them look patriotic. dont give in to it. spreading democracy is just a way to take over countries. in a good way. their dumb nwo plans wont succeed though. countries like china and north korea? will fuck em over. but a lot of innocent people will die while they try. so we should stop em asap! rawr! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Obama is the best candidate for president ever. I can't understand why he's so slept on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted August 2, 2007 Author Share Posted August 2, 2007 i think its just a coverup to make the election seem more believable or give an opposite candidate more attention. obama is in the Council On Foreign Relations with hilary clinton. funny thing is they have a black guy and a woman running, its like the perfect combo and back up candidates on the republican side. their just using terrorism as a way to get rid of the countries that would be against the nwo and fight against it (they try to make friends with the more powerful countries). a lot of terrorism isnt real, it benefits the nwo's goals more than the guys who do it. freedom fighters just want their freedom, so why would you take ours away instead of give them theirs. its not like they just got bored and went like 'i kinda hate america, lets blow up two skyscrapers'. but evidence points that the terrorism that happened was plotted by the nwo. so =/ wars dont happen because of retaliation. every intelligent guy knows that retaliation doesnt solve problems it just makes half the guys more happy. its a way to make ignants agree with a war. theres a lot of ignants. so =/ and once the war starts.. everyone just starts 'supporting the troops'. ignants. these candidates are either really stupid or just working at some evil goal. they keep picking at the whole terrorism bullshit to make them look patriotic. dont give in to it. spreading democracy is just a way to take over countries. in a good way. their dumb nwo plans wont succeed though. countries like china and north korea? will fuck em over. but a lot of innocent people will die while they try. so we should stop em asap! rawr! conspiracy theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted August 2, 2007 Author Share Posted August 2, 2007 Obama is the best candidate for president ever. I can't understand why he's so slept on. Why is he the best? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Obama is the best candidate for president ever. I can't understand why he's so slept on. He fucking is not. He panders to religions like the majority of the other scumsuckers and also CONSTANTLY repeats that he was against the war from the start, i'd bet my left nut that if he was in the senate at the time he would have blown with the wind and voted for the war like every other immoral piece of shit republicrat (a few exceptions) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 i agree. obama is one of the worst possible. as bad as hilary. i predict a clinton/obama ticket soon to come. thinksmall: you have the right idea. one thing about democracy: it's bad. in a democracy your neighbors can vote on what kind of haircut you should have. in a republic, people have individual rights (liberties). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CALIgula Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 sorry....i couldnt resist posting this in this thread any longer.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Why is democracy "bad"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Why is democracy "bad"? i just explained it. that is why we live in a democratic republic, theo. anyway, have a good one, ladies and gents. i have some stuff to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 i'm aware this is a democratic republic. but i thought that was a bad analogy; saying that people get to vote for what kind of a haircut you can have. democracy allows for individual liberties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 i'm aware this is a democratic republic. but i thought that was a bad analogy; saying that people get to vote for what kind of a haircut you can have. democracy allows for individual liberties. no, it's a right analogy. your neighbors could vote on whether or not you could walk your dog before 7:00 a.m. every morning. anything like that. that is a democracy. a democracy people have no individual liberties. a republic is where you start to see individual liberties. you're neighbors would have no say as to whether or not you walked your dog at 7:00a.m. or 3:00a.m. if you need further information, black's law dictionary is the place to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CALIgula Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 if you need further information, black's law dictionary is the place to go. black law's dictionary defines "substantial" as 90% or more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 in a democracy "the people" can also vote that you can walk your dog any time you want -- which would be equivalent to your comparison of a republic simply having individual walk the dog whenever he wants. the difference is that the community has a say-so, as opposed to total anarchy where people do as they please. democratic vote is necessary for rationalizing various circumstances. let's say dogs get kidnapped routinely in that area at nighttime, a vote can regulate people from walking their dogs in that area from 10pm to 4am, until that threat is resolved. what about people in office? should the president have individual liberties on decision-making, or should votes from congress regulate his behavior? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanfullofretards Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 "Democracy is like two wolves and a lamb deciding on what to have for lunch" --- Ben Franklin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 in a democracy "the people" can also vote that you can walk your dog any time you want -- which would be equivalent to your comparison of a republic simply having individual walk the dog whenever he wants. the difference is that the community has a say-so, as opposed to total anarchy where people do as they please. democratic vote is necessary for rationalizing various circumstances. let's say dogs get kidnapped routinely in that area at nighttime, a vote can regulate people from walking their dogs in that area from 10pm to 4am, until that threat is resolved. what about people in office? should the president have individual liberties on decision-making, or should votes from congress regulate his behavior? that's why a democratic republic is a very special thing, as i'm sure you realize. we have individual liberties with the power to vote as a whole on things that matter. the president has individual liberties as a citizen but not as a president. as a president, he has three tiers to work through. checks and balances to make sure that he doesn't abuse his powers as president. unfortunately, that isn't working so well because the current administration is abusing the hell out of our system of government. taking it in a tyrannical direction. i'm no dolt on this subject, theo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 "Democracy is like two wolves and a lamb deciding on what to have for lunch" --- Ben Franklin haha. good quote. that sums it up pretty nicely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanfullofretards Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 It's mob rule Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 black law's dictionary defines "substantial" as 90% or more. wouldn't you agree that is "substantial"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 It's mob rule yes, a democracy is mob rule. i'm really glad our founding fathers were so well versed and had the foresight to examine past systems of rule. if anyone is interested in learning more about how our government works, there's a very good video series put out by michael badnarik. video 1 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8321747074978323622&q=badnarik&total=50&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0 video 2 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4870224407360952135&q=constitution+class&total=439&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1 video3 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8018874590848634400&q=constitution+class&total=439&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5 video 4 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1980674934527237459&q=constitution+class&total=439&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=6 video 5 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5509747643152392910&q=constitution+class&total=439&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3 video 6 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3601271545224839349&q=constitution+class&total=439&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4 video 7 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5824859883322263421&q=constitution+class&total=439&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 right, no one implied you were. as far as bush's "tyranny", bush has actually veto'd legislation far less than most presidents. i believe he didn't veto one piece of legislation in his first term, which is exceptionally rare for a president. his first veto was of the bill regarding the lifting of federal restrictions on stem-cell research, i believe, which came in his second term. but he is pretty hardline when it comes to not compensating with the democratically-led congress on the iraq war. his recent speech where he stated that the alqaeda in iraq are the people that executed 9/11 was an outright lie. he said this to convince people that this iraq war is necessary. harry reid made a great point when stating that alqaeda in iraq arrived only after the US invasion, they weren't there before. if the US invaded any muslim nation (pick one), al qaeda would have followed and set up shop. also, none of the al qaeda in iraq had any foreknowledge of 9/11 (only a core network did -- the hamburg cell, and the very top al qaeda leaders in afghanistan and pakistan), and are more or less bin laden sympathizers... at best, some of the leaders of al qaeda in iraq had loose connections to bin laden. i know that last paragraph meant nothing to you since you think 9/11 was an inside job and bin laden is a CIA agent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts