Quote:
Originally Posted by winthrop
This is similar to a discussion on the Maher board when Mr. Obama
stated he would favor sending troops into Pakistan if there was proof
bin Laden and Al Qaeda operatives were in a specific place at a specific
time (a decidedly high threshold).
I defended that position against a few who insisted on morphing his
statement into favoring a full scale Iraq-style invasion of Pakistan,
complete with the removal of Musharraf, which it was not.
Now we see Ms. Clinton's comment, based on a possible response to
an unlikely situation, turned into a unilateral, unprovoked bloodlusting
call for destruction.
War is the most abhorrent of foreign policy failures, and we as a species
must turn from it if we are at survive.
This requires everyone coming to this conclusion, however, and
primitive lizard brains still dominate humanity.
|
excellent post Winthrop...but I would say this,
I am wary of having any military strike in Pakistan without the Pakistan's permission, regardless of Al Qaeda's presence. I actually went against Obama's statement at the time.
In an ideal world we strengthen relations with Pakistan and they in turn, continue to provide us with information about extremists.
your right in pointing out they were both hypothetical statements... I just feel that Iran seeking to "obliterate" Israel with nuclear weapons poses more of a threat to the world than Al Qaeda's presence in Pakistan.