[Yarn]

Quote by: thx1138 Stop this nonsense.

And give Afghanistan back to genociding oppressors (the Taliban), and the perpetrators of 9/11 (Al Qaeda)?

Quote by: thx1138 The only reason Afghanistan was attacked was to secure the gas pipeline running through the country.

How can you possibly claim to know that?

We would have gone into Afghanistan under most any administration. It made sense, much more sense than Iraq did, and makes sense in hindsight.

Quote by: Sonart . And then completely and utterly failing to complete the job by, a) taking our eye off the ball and invading Iraq, b) diverting much needed resources from the rebuilding of Afghanistan and mopping up the Taliban, c) yet another failure by Rumsnamara when he failed to capture bin Laden at Tora Bora after replacing George Tenet's plan with his own.

"I understand that President Musharraf (of Pakistan) has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. 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-Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."-Barack Obama

Quote by: Sonart And how would you feel if, say, Mexico, without our permission, sent troops into Texas, shooting up communities in their pursuit of... oh... drug cartel members? And their American accomplices. And they decide exactly who's an American accomplice. After all, they're evil, murderous drug dealers, right? Why would we possibly complain about their removing such threats in our own midst? And if a few innocent American civilians die in the crossfire, gosh, isn't that the price of getting rid of evil?

If we hadn't done anything effective about the drug dealers, and they were responsible for killing thousands in the region and abroad, and were plotting to and capable of killing more, and our people were actively sheltering them, then sure, I wouldn't mind Mexico coming in to root them out, even if some innocent civillians got killed in the process. I am a supporter of shooting one man to save 10.

Quote by: Sonart . Exactly so, and the first different strategy that needs to be tried is to conclude that military solutions against civilian criminal gangs aren't working. Think outside the box of the myth of "unbeatable American military might", and focus on what works... internationally cooperative intelligence and POLICE work. In case you hadn't noticed, that's where we and our allies have experienced the most success during the last 6 years.

What domestic strategy would be successful in destroying Al Qaeda and the Taliban. I don't see how we can aid them to death, though more aid should be given to Afghanistan.

Quote by: The Decider Yes, considerable blowback indeed, especially since Pakistan owns several nuclear devices and rockets capable of delivering them. Its current president is more unpopular than George Bush. An armed attack that may topple the leadership of a nuclear power is a unique kind of blowback threat---one that requires caution and analysis. Political bluster from a candidate behind in the polls does little to inspire confidence. Obama made a big mistake by making Hillary look even more level-headed. He needs new advisors.

"I understand that President Musharraf (of Pakistan) has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. 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-Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."-Barack Obama

Status quo has been proven to be ineffective. I am sure that Musharraf will realize that it makes more sense for his army to conduct the attacks, than it does for ours to, for him politically.

As long as they do the job, we don't have to, so our threats may be effective here.

Quote by: The Decider Walk softly and carry a big stick. In other words, don't issue threats and act like Rambo on 'roids. If action is needed and warranted, then act. Otherwise STFU.

Which is indeed Hillary's new stated stance. However, unlike her's Barack's strategy carries a reduced probability that the US will have to do anything. It may not be good PR to make threats, but it is better PR than a US attack would be.

Hillary is a hypocrite by the way:

"I am concerned about talking about it," she said. "I think everyone agrees that our goal should be to capture or kill bin Laden and his lieutenants but how we do it should not be telegraphed and discussed for obvious reasons."

Clinton didn't seem to have any problem "talking about" the subject on Wednesday, when interviewed on American Urban Radio News Network.

"I've long believed that we needed tougher, smarter action against terrorists by deploying more troops to Afghanistan, and 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.
- ABC News: Obama-Clinton Race Goes Nuclear