Senator Clinton Well Could beat McCain...

Damocles said:
Too bad Pakistan doesn't have the ability to miss things like that:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3443258&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

Pakistan criticized U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes against terrorists hiding in this Islamic country.

Top Pakistan officials said Obama's comment was irresponsible and likely made for political gain in the race for the Democratic nomination.

More at link...
Click to expand...

From your own link!

"Obama said in a speech Wednesday that as president he would order military action against terrorists in Pakistan's tribal region bordering Afghanistan if intelligence warranted it."

You're right, it is too bad that the Pakistanis are as crappy as reading as you are! lol
 
Cypress said:
if your so concerned about bellicose statements that inflame the muslim world, why did you vote for bush and defend McCain? They have, and will do, orders more magnitude of damage to our relations in the muslim world than obama ever has
Click to expand...
Bush never made any remarks like that in 2000, he wasn't even asked. Why did you vote for Kerry if statements like escalating the war in Iraq were an automatic thumbs down?
 
Superfreak said:
So two will bomb Pakistani territory without authority from the Pakistani government.... and THAT is ok.

But someone singing a song about dropping bombs on Iran is bad... I suppose if you continue to believe the spin and ignore what Damo has posted repeatedly on this thread...yeah that is REAALLLLLY bad.

Yeah, I think it is quite easy to distinguish between the two.
Click to expand...


No, the point is that no one has advocated "invading" Pakistan. No one. It's bullshit. That's the point.

We can argue the merits of their position on pursuing Al Qaeda in Pakistan if you wish and we can argue the merits of the candidate's respective policy statements about Iran if you wish. First, we'll have to agree that you are full of shit on the "invade Pakistan" nonsense.
 
Darla said:
From your own link!

"Obama said in a speech Wednesday that as president he would order military action against terrorists in Pakistan's tribal region bordering Afghanistan if intelligence warranted it."

You're right, it is too bad that the Pakistanis are as crappy as reading as you are! lol
Click to expand...
Man, you are being deliberately dumb. What they objected to was the fact that currently they give permission for the forays, they feel his responses to be irresponsible because it assumed that they would refuse.

Regardless, that is invasion, a silly song isn't.
 
Damocles said:
LOL.

I'd be embarrassed too if all the evidence I had was one line of a silly parody song from the 70s that preceded a responsible response on diplomatic efforts.
Click to expand...

So is it your position, that McCain never said that he would use military force against Iran if intelligence showed they were a threat to Israel, in a debate?

Can you state that, for the record, McCain never said that.

because when I own you, I want to make sure it's actual outright slavery. I will make you wash the board floors!
 
Dungheap said:
No, the point is that no one has advocated "invading" Pakistan. No one. It's bullshit. That's the point.

We can argue the merits of their position on pursuing Al Qaeda in Pakistan if you wish and we can argue the merits of the candidate's respective policy statements about Iran if you wish. First, we'll have to agree that you are full of shit on the "invade Pakistan" nonsense.
Click to expand...
If another military came into the US on "limited forays" without her permission would it be an invasion?
 
Damocles said:
Man, you are being deliberately dumb. What they objected to was the fact that currently they give permission for the forays, they feel his responses to be irresponsible because it assumed that they would refuse.

Regardless, that is invasion, a silly song isn't.
Click to expand...

But you posted that as evidence that I was wrong when I said I didn't think Obama has ever said he would "bomb Pakistan".

So, can you explain then how that link showed I was wrong?
 
Darla said:
So is it your position, that McCain never said that he would use military force against Iran if intelligence showed they were a threat to Israel, in a debate?

Can you state that, for the record, McCain never said that.

because when I own you, I want to make sure it's actual outright slavery. I will make you wash the board floors!
Click to expand...
No, I can't state that. However, he did not say his policy is to "bomb Iran" or that he ever "wished" to invade Iran. In fact, his answer sounded exactly like Obama's answer about Pakistan. Yet you support one "warmonger" over another? Hillary's answer to the same question seemed amazingly similar as well, no?
 
Darla said:
But you posted that as evidence that I was wrong when I said I didn't think Obama has ever said he would "bomb Pakistan".

So, can you explain then how that link showed I was wrong?
Click to expand...
Point to where I said he said "bomb Pakistan". I said he spoke of invading another nation.
 
Dungheap said:
No, the point is that no one has advocated "invading" Pakistan. No one. It's bullshit. That's the point.

We can argue the merits of their position on pursuing Al Qaeda in Pakistan if you wish and we can argue the merits of the candidate's respective policy statements about Iran if you wish. First, we'll have to agree that you are full of shit on the "invade Pakistan" nonsense.
Click to expand...

Right.... according to your guidlines, when McCain sings a song about bombing Iran then clarifies that he is kidding and that we need diplomacy... THAT equates to bombing and invading Iran.

But when Obama actually states he would bomb Pakistani land without diplomacy... that is just what again?
 
Damocles said:
If another military came into the US on "limited forays" without her permission would it be an invasion?
Click to expand...


Answer my question first. Did we invade Pakistan in January?

But for giggles, are we also assuming that say, the government of Canada was overthrown by this other military because the Canadians were harboring a terrorist group that attacked the other military's homeland and the terrorists fled to say, Alaska and the US government not only did not do anything to prevent the terrorists from seeking safe haven in the Alaskan wilderness and the other military had repeatedly warned the US that the other military would take action if the US did not?

I mean, I just want to get the ground rules if we are discussing hypotheticals.
 
Dungheap said:
Answer my question first. Did we invade Pakistan in January?

But for giggles, are we also assuming that say, the government of Canada was overthrown by this other military because the Canadians were harboring a terrorist group that attacked the other military's homeland and the terrorists fled to say, Alaska and the US government not only did not do anything to prevent the terrorists from seeking safe haven in the Alaskan wilderness and the other military had repeatedly warned the US that the other military would take action if the US did not?

I mean, I just want to get the ground rules if we are discussing hypotheticals.
Click to expand...
We did not, we had permission for limited forays into the nation. What part of permission is lost on you?

Obama spoke of doing this without diplomacy. What a cowboy! Shoot first and ask questions later... (Echos of what I would hear if an R candidate was asked the same question...)
 
Damocles said:
Point to where I said he said "bomb Pakistan". I said he spoke of invading another nation.
Click to expand...

Ok here is how it went:

Darla wrote: I disagree, strongly, with any idea of sending any troops into Pakistan - it will be a disaster. I remember Obama saying something about that, in relation to someone like Osama Bin Laden. I don't think it's a good idea.

But, I don't think Obama ever said he was going to "bomb Pakistan".

Damo responded with: Too bad Pakistan doesn't have the ability to miss things like that:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...C-RSSFeeds0312

----------------------------------------------------

So since, I said right in the post that you were responding to, that I knew Obama has said something about going into Pakistan after terrorists, and that I disagreed with it, but that I don't think Obama ever said he would "bomb Pakistan", why on earth did you say "too bad Pakistan didn't miss things like that", and then post a link agreeing with my original post? Which is, Obama did say he would go after terrorists in Pakistan militarily, but he did not say he would bomb Pakistan...

Were you posting evidence to back up my post? If so, thank you.
 
"Clinton, in an interview with the American Urban Radio Network, stressed the importance of the Pakistanis "taking the actions that only they can take within their own country."

But she did not rule out U.S. attacks inside Pakistan, citing the missile attacks her husband, then-President Bill Clinton, ordered against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998.

"If we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured," she said."


Same article
 
Damocles said:
No, I can't state that. However, he did not say his policy is to "bomb Iran" or that he ever "wished" to invade Iran. In fact, his answer sounded exactly like Obama's answer about Pakistan. Yet you support one "warmonger" over another? Hillary's answer to the same question seemed amazingly similar as well, no?
Click to expand...

Obama said he would attack pakistan if they were a threat to Israel?

+10 SF faux "the dems did it too!" points.

But, they're still faux.
 
Dungheap said:
The part where we didn't get it. That's the part:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23228197
Click to expand...
but without getting the government's formal permission beforehand.
Click to expand...

Did you notice the word "formal"?

In this case back room diplomacy is worked. The government could not openly take a position that allowed the attacks therefore a back room deal is worked that allows for the limited forays without fraying the current relationship.

But yes, if there is no permission it is an invasion.
 
Wow, the twisting and turning to make oneself feel better about voting for the war candidate, one Mr. John McCain, is really embarrassing. Plus, I would think it hurts, unless you're an actual contortionist.

I'm so glad I support a candidate who has not come out for preemptive wars. It's easier that way. Especially for a cow like me! I can't be expected to get my body into those positions!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top