The Obama thread

Obama has pledged to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan and invade Pakistan.

"We have to understand that the situation is precarious and urgent here in Afghanistan, and I believe this has to be the central focus, the central front, in the battle against terrorism," Obama said in an interview with CBS News.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/20/mideast/obama.php

 

The article you link to says that Obama thinks that Afghanistan is most important as far as battling terrorists. You disagree with that? You see the neocons have taken their eyes off the ball (where the terrorists actually are) and have been battling in Iraq over oil instead. Obama wants to get our country back on the right track as far as foreign policy by putting our resources where they should be instead of being wasted in Iraq.

It's hard to tell what your point is, if you have one.

And are you aware that the Iraqi PM agrees with Obama's plan for withdrawal?

 

Focusing on Afghanistan is bad how exactly?

Where does it also say he plans to invade Pakistan, I must have missed that part in the article.

 

I think we should pull out of Iraq and focus on different targets as well. Our job in Iraq is complete and the Iraqi soldiers are doing great.

I like that Obama wants to pop Pakistan. Remember what Bush said years ago " We will hunt down terrorist anywhere no borders can stop us"
But yet when skinnies run across the border we are not allowed to follow. The Oil argument is absurd. Not backing down against terrorist is the correct course. Is Obama all talk? or will he send the troops over the border?

@grim "to focus more on terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan"

 

That is a FAR cry from invading another country.

 

What does "focus more on terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan" mean? Explain it to me. Invade is how I read it.

 

You can focus many ways, you can focus as in direct contact with the Pakistani's to start taking more control. You can do it many, many ways before an invasion would even need to be done.

Sanctions, stopping them from crossing the boarders, so many ways that have nothing to do with 'invasion'

 

Battling against an idea is not only dangerous but expensive. When will it ever stop? Probably not.

Not until the world's largest religion is completely wiped out. Can we really do something like that?

Only time will tell.

Mankind is capable of some pretty rotten shit in the name of $$.

 

This does not make sense to me.

 

The war on "Terror" + Jihad = War of religions.

 

I am glad the United States focused on terrorist sanctuaries in in Iraq and Afghanstan and now are moving into Pakistan.

 

We BROUGHT the terrorists into Iraq, the few that were there 'that we actually were fighting against' were in the north, where Saddam did not control.

No matter how many times you repeat the same thing it does not make it true.

 

not repeated

The quote of mine that you listed was the first time I used it. Come up with a new catch phrase instead of "No matter how many times you repeat the same thing it does not make it true"

 

Lumping terrorism with Iraq no matter how you specifically state it is the same thing

You have done it over and over on DP, still waiting for that proof that Saddam/Iraq funded 9/11 btw.

 

Oh yea I forgot., Saddam was funding goat farming.

 

If Pakistan does not take care of the sanctuaries along the Afgan border then NATO/Afgan/US forces will target the sanctuaries. This is already going on btw.

 

obama will be a interesting president if he does what he says

time to go after the real terrorist nations, and the world will support him when he invades Pakistan

 

Didn't catch that he never said invade I take it?

 

I think most people that read "focus more on terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan" knows it means to invade.

I guess other people think "focus more on terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan" means to send an email and ask terrorists stop.

 

No actually the only person who thought it meant that misread YOUR misleading and false title.