DEM Primaries/Candidates thread

[jackie hayes]

That's funny because Kos is a Cubs fan.

Didn't know that. Was that the reason for the boos, or do the bloggers just have exceptional taste?

[Balta1701]

That's funny because Kos is a Cubs fan.

See everyone, it's just about this simple in the Dem Primaries.

 

Hillarity: Cubs Fan.

Obama: White Sox fan.

[southsider2k5]

So Obama is only in favor of a pre-emptive war/invasion if it is with one of our allies? I gotta say, he hasn't had a good looking week this week. The Clinton media machine is tearing him a new one.

[NorthSideSox72]

So Obama is only in favor of a pre-emptive war/invasion if it is with one of our allies? I gotta say, he hasn't had a good looking week this week. The Clinton media machine is tearing him a new one.

Thing is, I think he's got the right idea. A targeted sweep of the mountains along the Afghan-Paki border would have been something worth doing, instead of backing out of Afghanistan so we could fight in Iraq.

 

We'll see in a week or so, when polls come out covering this period, how much it is or isn't effecting him.

 

[southsider2k5]

Thing is, I think he's got the right idea. A targeted sweep of the mountains along the Afghan-Paki border would have been something worth doing, instead of backing out of Afghanistan so we could fight in Iraq.

 

We'll see in a week or so, when polls come out covering this period, how much it is or isn't effecting him.

 

It might sound good to some, but we are talking about a pre-emptive military invasion of an ally. At least Iraq was our enemy and thumbing their nose at the entire world, what has Pakistan done to us? You can bet if this was said by someone like Mitt or McCain, the spin would be vicious and entirely different.

[Balta1701]

It might sound good to some, but we are talking about a pre-emptive military invasion of an ally. At least Iraq was our enemy and thumbing their nose at the entire world, what has Pakistan done to us? You can bet if this was said by someone like Mitt or McCain, the spin would be vicious and entirely different.

Well, they did train the Taliban, they've essentially negotiated and signed a peace deal with organizations we'd label as part of Al Qaeda, and they're armed with WMD.

 

If nothing else, every single justification for the Iraq war applies even more so to Pakistan. Armed with WMD, with a significant Al Qaeda presence in their territory that they're not even really trying to remove, they're run by a dictator, they've launched aggressive wars against their neighbors and their government has directly financed and aided terrorist operations in the past (in Kashmir).

[southsider2k5]

Well, they did train the Taliban, they've essentially negotiated and signed a peace deal with organizations we'd label as part of Al Qaeda, and they're armed with WMD.

 

If nothing else, every single justification for the Iraq war applies even more so to Pakistan. Armed with WMD, with a significant Al Qaeda presence in their territory that they're not even really trying to remove, they're run by a dictator, they've launched aggressive wars against their neighbors and their government has directly financed and aided terrorist operations in the past (in Kashmir).

 

But supposedly not even genocide is enough to attack another country, and the Iraq war was wrong. How do you justify those two opinons working together?

[NorthSideSox72]

It might sound good to some, but we are talking about a pre-emptive military invasion of an ally. At least Iraq was our enemy and thumbing their nose at the entire world, what has Pakistan done to us? You can bet if this was said by someone like Mitt or McCain, the spin would be vicious and entirely different.

From some, yes, of course there would be negative spin. Not from me, though. I said years ago we took our eye of the ball, we should have stayed where we were and actually finished the job.

 

And Pakistan is our ally only because Musharaff is masterful at standing on that razor's edge - balancing the extremist elements in his country against the pro-western moderates. They are an ally like Saudi Arabia is an ally. And if Al Qaeda was based in Saudi, I'd say the same thing.

 

The fact that Pakistan is an "ally" isn't really relevant in this case. What IS relevant though, and what we'd need to be very careful about, is if Musharaff lost control. If more extremist elements of Pakistan took control, and thereby had nukes... well, that would be very, very bad. Which on its face seems to indicate that Obama's view isn't logical - why put Musharaff in an even worse position? In the longer view though, if more extremist elements did in fact take control of Pakistan, and if we DIDN'T get Al Qaeda out of there... that is even worse. Pakistan, at this point, scares me more than almost any other country. I sincerely hope that we have a plan ready to intercede at a moment's notice should Musharaff's government collapse - one which would need a lot of help from India to succeed. We'd need to prop Musharaff back up into power. We don't have the resources to control yet another country, and the Pakis would never allow India to do so. End game is that we want the nukes controlled by a moderate government, and for the likes of Al Qaeda to NOT be in the country during the transition.

 

Anyway, that line of reasoning could go on and on. Pakistan is not only a big mystery, but they are a huge danger as well. I think we'd be well off to do everything we can to protect Musharaff or any other moderate successor (if we aren't already).

 

[Balta1701]

But supposedly not even genocide is enough to attack another country, and the Iraq war was wrong. How do you justify those two opinons working together?

Well, I don't think any of those are justification for attacking a country except in the right case for the presence of Al Qaeda members, given that the organization in question has already attacked us. And Al Qaeda is vastly more poweful in Pakistan than it was ever in Iraq before the invasion. But if you ask, would I have supported an attack on the Zarqawi camp which the No Fly zones were protecting in Iraq before the war, the answer would almost certainly be yes.

 

And the Genocide one is a very touchy one, and I can't give you a clear answer on that, because the simple fact is that war is Hell and war almost invariably makes things worse, so things have to be incredibly bad at the time of the invasion for a humanitarian war to actually be practical. Rwanda might be about the only actual example I can think of. The Iraq war has made the humanitarian situation vastly, vastly worse. The Kosovo bombings made the situation in Kosovo dramatically worse right away, and the killings dramatically increased as soon as the bombings began.

[southsider2k5]

Anyway, that line of reasoning could go on and on. Pakistan is not only a big mystery, but they are a huge danger as well. I think we'd be well off to do everything we can to protect Musharaff or any other moderate successor (if we aren't already).

 

They are both of those things and more. Jesus going into Pakistan in any form would guarentee the downfall of a friendly government and it would lose any help at all in that region. It would also put WMD into the hands of an enemy Islamic state.

[Balta1701]

They are both of those things and more. Jesus going into Pakistan in any form would guarentee the downfall of a friendly government and it would lose any help at all in that region. It would also put WMD into the hands of an enemy Islamic state.

But of course, things aren't that simple. If it were known that Bin Laden was in that territory, how much difference could the capture of UBL make to the situation? Possibly a ton. And beyond that, Musharraf's government certainly appears to have considerably weakened over the past year or so, to the point where there has been some talk that it could just fall anyway. Like many military dictatorships, it can really only last so long.

[southsider2k5]

But of course, things aren't that simple. If it were known that Bin Laden was in that territory, how much difference could the capture of UBL make to the situation? Possibly a ton. And beyond that, Musharraf's government certainly appears to have considerably weakened over the past year or so, to the point where there has been some talk that it could just fall anyway. Like many military dictatorships, it can really only last so long.

 

The capture of Saddam sure didn't make a difference in Iraq, and he was a hero to a lot less people that OBL is over there. Plus it still needs to bear repeating that would be invading an ally, not an enemy. If you think we have no credibility now, see how the world looks at us after that move. Bush may have pissed off a lot of people, but at least he hasn't gone that far.

[NorthSideSox72]

They are both of those things and more. Jesus going into Pakistan in any form would guarentee the downfall of a friendly government and it would lose any help at all in that region. It would also put WMD into the hands of an enemy Islamic state.

Well see, I don't think that is seeing the long run. In the short run, yes, a military action might destabilize Musharaff's government. Maybe. But going past that point, where are things in 5 or 10 years? Because the way it is now, regardless of us being involved or not, Musharaff won't last forever. And the question you do need to ask is, who do you want at the table when he walks away from it? You sure don't want Al Qaeda around as any kind of force.

 

[southsider2k5]

Well see, I don't think that is seeing the long run. In the short run, yes, a military action might destabilize Musharaff's government. Maybe. But going past that point, where are things in 5 or 10 years? Because the way it is now, regardless of us being involved or not, Musharaff won't last forever. And the question you do need to ask is, who do you want at the table when he walks away from it? You sure don't want Al Qaeda around as any kind of force.

 

So what other group has enough organization, backing, military might, and power to step into a vaccuum in Pakistan?

[NorthSideSox72]

So what other group has enough organization, backing, military might, and power to step into a vaccuum in Pakistan?

Unfortunately, we really do not. If we had stayed focused on Afghanistan and kept things going there, we'd be in a position to do that now in Paki if it were necessary.

 

India has the resources, if they had US and UK assistance... but the animosity there is too much. Anything they tried to do would immediately be doomed.

 

Honestly, we're not going to make that sweep in Pakistan. Won't happen. What is a strong possibility is that Pakistan will destabilize no matter what we do. And my point has been mostly that I'd rather have Al Qaeda out than in, given that scenario. People are focused on Iraq, Iran and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but if Musharaff is overthrown violently, then we are looking at a major regional upheaval. Not good.

 

[Rex Kickass]

So what other group has enough organization, backing, military might, and power to step into a vaccuum in Pakistan?

The Pakistani military.

 

Musharraf has lost power. The military has not.

[NorthSideSox72]

The Pakistani military.

 

Musharraf has lost power. The military has not.

Musharraf was the one who lead the military coup. Are you saying that he has now lost control of that same military?

 

[Rex Kickass]

Pretty much yes. That's why his government is weak. There is pressure on Musharraf to hold elections and choose between head of the military and President, because the support for him to hold both is dwindling.

[NorthSideSox72]

Fun article where theater critics from the Trib review the "performances" of the Dem candidates in the latest debate from their perspective. I hope they do this with the GOP as well.

 

[BigSqwert]

This is some amazing footage of Cheney in 1994 talking about Iraq.

 

http://www.infowars.com/articles/iraq/chen...on_quagmire.htm

[southsider2k5]

So who in the heck hired John Kerry as Obama's speechwriter lately? People talk about the stupid things that Bush saids, but wow.

 

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2...re_yesterd.html

 

"Now you have narco drug lords who are helping to finance the Taliban, so we've got to get the job done there, and that requires us to have enough troops that we are not just air raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there."

[Balta1701]

So who in the heck hired John Kerry as Obama's speechwriter lately? People talk about the stupid things that Bush saids, but wow.

 

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2...re_yesterd.html

AP Fact Check: Obama on Afghanistan

THE SPIN:

 

The suggestion whispered by Obama's opponents was that he was maligning the efforts of troops fighting in Afghanistan by stating they are "just" out there killing civilians.

 

The Republican National Committee simply repeated the comment as one of their "They Said It!" series used to highlight statements by opponents that supposedly put them in a bad light. RNC Chairman Mike Duncan followed up later in a statement demanding that Obama apologize for his "offensive" statement.

 

"It is hard to imagine that anyone who aspires to be commander in chief would say such a thing about our brave men and women in uniform," Duncan said. "Obama owes our armed forces an apology — today."

 

THE FACT CHECK:

 

A check of the facts shows that Western forces have been killing civilians at a faster rate than the insurgents have been killing civilians.

 

The U.S. and NATO say they don't have civilian casualty figures, but The Associated Press has been keeping count based on figures from Afghan and international officials. Tracking civilian deaths is a difficult task because they often occur in remote and dangerous areas that are difficult to reach and verify.

 

As of Aug. 1, the AP count shows that while militants killed 231 civilians in attacks in 2007, Western forces killed 286. Another 20 were killed in crossfire that can't be attributed to one party.

 

Afghan President Hamid Karzai expressed his concern about the civilian deaths during a meeting last week with President Bush.

 

Bush said he understands the agony that Afghans feel over the loss of innocent lives and that he is doing everything he can to protect them. He said the Taliban are using civilians as human shields and have no regard for their lives.

 

"The president rightly expressed his concerns about civilian casualty," Bush said of Karzai. "And I assured him that we share those concerns."

[kapkomet]

This is what I love about you liberals. Thanks Balta.

[Balta1701]

This is what I love about you liberals. Thanks Balta.

This is what I love about you conservatives. Thinking it's a bad thing for a person to complain about civilian casualties.

[kapkomet]

This is what I love about you conservatives. Thinking it's a bad thing for a person to complain about civilian casualties.

 

I never said that.