It looks like no one is willing to learn nothing from the mistakes of the Bush administration made over the last few years. Our democratic candidates shun Bush’s war on terror but are more than ready to engage in another war which has the potential to evolve in another world war.
I am referring to the recent Obama outburst at the “Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars” where a passionate speech by the Illinois senator calls for a military action inside Pakistani soil to root out terrorism.
Pakistan’s rough northwestern terrain shares its borders with Afghanistan which makes it easy for militants to sneak into the territory and move without being noticed. This has been a subject of many debates and a cause for international pressure on Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf. Musharraf has himself survived many assassination attempts and has been battling militants within the walls of his very country. He has also been deploying hoards of soldiers on Pakistani borders to combat the growing threat. He also has been facing rising anti-Musharraf and anti-US sentiments and is trying to control the situation and remaining active in his fight against the militants and working with the current US government.
American forces bombed Afghanistan and left the mess hanging in the middle. We are fighting in Iraq but now are in it too deep and want our boys to come home safely; leaving the ground open for all militant groups to jump in and declare it a lawless land. Obama is now offering to jump back in Afghanistan again and this time wants to take down Pakistan as well. Isn’t it time that he realizes that we have been through enough war? An invasion against Pakistan, A small but nevertheless a nuclear power, would be catastrophic for this alleged war against terror.
“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”
Actionable evidence? Like the one we had to start a war in Iraq? Now Obama wants to get ahead in the game and wants to rock the bejesus out of Pakistan. Well, I have two questions for Obama:
1- Let’s say you send troops into Pakistan for a series finale and do not find what you went in looking for. Then what? Would you the bomb Iran, Saudi Arabia and every Muslim out there that you think is a potential terrorist?
2- Why don’t you go and find out where the actual problem lies? Terrorist activities can never prosper without proper funding. How about going against the Arab sheikhs who are notoriously famous for backing afghan militants. Or are you afraid for your oil?
May be it is time that our hopeful candidates realize that a war of might does not work every time. Pakistan is not Iraq; and certainly not a country which will accept any outside invasion. When is our leadership ready to work via diplomacy? When will it be ready to stop pressurizing countries to do its bidding? When will our leaders be ready to accept that such a line of action only makes more enemies and does not help the situation we are already in?
Obama calls Bush as a person “who confuses our mission” maybe it is we who are confused…What if we get off our high horse for one day and rethink our strategies then maybe we won’t have to bomb one country after the another and still remain empty handed.
Saira Wasif, Politics correspondent;
Saira’s column, Global Crock pot, published every Thursday to Gather Essentials: Politics is contemplation on World Affairs.
Northern Virginia based writer-Saira Wasif has been into politics since her college years. Being brought up in a politically tense environment of South-Asia; opinionated commentaries came natural to her. She has written various global awareness articles for a number of online magazines and had been active in her home town with local organizations and newspapers.
You can find all of Saira Wasif’s columns at Global Crock pot, global correspondent, and politics. Keep up with Saira Wasif’s other postings and gather activity by joining her gather network – just click here http://sairawasif.gather.com/ and select the orange “Connect” button on the left hand side of the page.
You will find Saira Wasif’s and other Politics correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other Politics experts at Politics.gather.com
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 67
There is a different standard in the media for Democrats.
In order to have diplomacy we have to elect diplomats, not bullies and braggards.
I think Obama is simply saying that we got into this mess to go after Al Quaeda, intelligence has been long telling us that the leaders are now holed up in northern Pakistan, so let's do the job we, as a nation, set out to do in the first place. A job the BA has botched over and over again, getting it tangled in their neocon concerns for domination of oil resources. Let's go after the root of the evil where we know it exists. It's not just American intelligence that thinks so.
Is this the ultimate answer to defeating terrorism? No, because terrorism is not a group, a government, an army, any kind of defined entity. It is a method that can be used by any disgruntled group throughout the world for an endless variety of reasons. Once we wake up and start looking at what prompts people to band together and use terrorist methods, then address those issues, we will be a lot closer to defeating it than any bogus war.
Obama just threw that out there to make sure he doesn't have a toothless image. He's obviously going to need more conservative votes to catch up with Clinton.
The madrassas in Pakistan are growing in number thanks to the concentrated efforts of the Saudis - as well as the mess in Iraq.
In putting the option of rooting out terrorism in Pakistan on the table, Obama is demonstrating a much deeper understanding of the Middle East than the current administration seems to have. He's apparently not afraid to be tough - and I for one support that. Being tough does not mean preemptive war; it just means being tough and, in this case, it also means being smart.
> Our democratic candidates shun Bush's war on terror but
> are more than ready to engage in another war which has
> the potential to evolve in another world war.
This is why I hope this incident evolves into a discussion of
why "feelings" about Bush, Bush's failures, Bush's personality
do have much to do with the "war on terror" ... even Bush's
slogan have nothing to do with this threat and this war.
This country is obsessed with Bush when we should be obsessed
with looking forward at the world threatening problem of Islamo-
Fascism and destroying it. And it is going to cost us. The idea that
leaders can add to their portfolios and go on vacation at a time like
this bugs me. If we want to end this thing in victory we all need to
sacrifice, we all need to pay the taxes, now instead of later, we need
to get it over with instead of milking it which seems to be happening
now, making victory less likely.
We can throw another complaint of incompetence on the Bush
administration because through his secrecy, by his unilateralism,
by attacking the Constitution instead of the terrorists, by having
this war draw out and money disappearing and huge profits
accruing over a very long term for Halliburton, military contractors,
the oil company, and by sheer arrogance he has made the whole
issue about him, and about the inequalities of this country.
I hope this can be discussed now, and I hope the unwarranted
pacifistic argument that gets tossed around about a million times
a day that if we just crawl in our shell and close out eyes that
somehow the world will like us again and this will all go away.
I will not consider voting for Barak Obama for President until I
start to understand his view of the big picture, but it is a point
in his favor that I know a bit more about who he is and that he
has started to take a real stand and actually assisted the real
discussion instead of talked around it.
Now let's see whether he has the guts for a discussion about
what would happen if he did what he says.
In that vein I think Obama's statement while upsetting to some was just what we need to urge the discussion forward, that is if we want to have a democracy and discuss things. I am hardly content with stopping the discussion where you seem to want to end it.
> "no one is willing to learn nothing"
I noticed that too and I am formulating quite am idea of the Middle Eastern Arabic Female sounding Saira Wasif through the little things that leak through.
Your trite and overwhelmingly ignorant rant lends a whole new perspective to "citizen journalism". Thankfully for you, Gather has no editors to interfere with your ill-informed, poorly written drivel. Can you say HACK?
Only in a forum such as this can a "writer" like you be referred to as a "political correspondent". Thank you Mr./Ms. Wasif, my career is not in jeopardy from the likes of you.
Here's the truth related to this matter, as covered by the international press. The direct quote from Senator Obama related to Pakistan, in Wednesday's foreign policy speech to the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington, is this:
"It is time to turn the page. When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland."
I take no offense to this statement, outside of one contingency. The "war" must be fought using the strength's the U.S. was once known for: high-level intelligence and taking down targets without civilian lives being impacted. On each of those criteria, we have primarily failed since 2001.
If the Senator sticks to the plan that he sketched out in this same speech -- "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President [Pervez] Musharraf won't act, we will." -- then I personally believe this to be a step in the right direction for reestablishing the U.S. as a nation that can be trusted and respected worldwide.
But then again, it could just be a campaign talking point....
I can already see Rovian Fingerprints on the "coverage" of the Democratic Nomination race. Not much can be done to prevent it, but there are two people who are being misquoted and mischaracterized repeatedly. Obama and Clinton. Since my personal choice is Bill Richardson, I should not come to the defense of either of them. But, I am not going to sit by and see anyone's character burned by half the truth, or outright lies.
To Michael L... whatever dude...
Ms Meacham; Afghanistan and Pakistan share the roughest terrain in the world. Remember tora bora, that was just one part of the 1400 mile border. Regarding obama's statement to make things right, try to comprehend one thing regarding the war on terror. Terror is not a country, its an act; an act carried out by a lot of countries. the US can blame anyone of this act, label them terrorist, get a pre-emptive strike... get the picture. When the US says it will negotiate there is no such thing as negotiations.... its " You do it our way or we will bomb you back to the stone age".
You accuse me of misrepresenting Obama's speech. Take your sweet time to get the gist of the whole paragraph you pasted above. What i wrote was the simpler version of the whole speech.
Bruce: From what i have gathered from your posts is that you resort to personal attacks a little too soon. By the way i am not Middle-eastern.
Obama made the statement as if Pakistan is a deserted and an unorganized country like Afghanistan. Musharraf has literally risked his neck in helping out in the war on terror. If i was the one conveniently leaving out important parts of the speech,how can you explain the quick statement issued by the Pakistan's Foreign Office condemning this alleged choice of words by Osama. Or is it that they too are unable to decipher the hidden message of peace?
The only time I feel any animosity towards you is when you defend what I think is the indefensible that could lead to disaster, like Iran's nuclear program. Otherwise I do listen very carefully, or try to.
I think if you did not distill Obama's speech exactly right, you got what was reported on the news, and the intent right - and I was going to post your comment about Pakistan's rapid reply.
Does it change your image of Obama? It did for me, even though I realize the whole comment in context was a bit different that it sounded. The press is taking an active roll here much more than ever before I think. They are not doing this kind of thing with the Republican candidates, suprise!
But I think OBAMA is an Empty Suit. He bends to the crowd he is in front of instead of having the interest of the People Of the United States. I know I probably have a target painted on my forehead. Whats New!!!!
I don't think Obama can win this, and I am not sure he has much to add. I think he is going to end up folding, and I think the sooner the better for him if he wants to have a long term political career. He will need allies and to prove himself in the future. Being so ambitious I am sure that is not what he wants to do but I am almost certain that if he makes a pain of himself the American people will count him out in the future. We had a nice intoduction to him, I want to make sure he has staying power and is dedicated in the long term like everyone else in this race.
The madrassas in Pakistan are growing in number thanks to the concentrated efforts of the Saudis - as well as the mess in Iraq."
So when are we going to go after the Saudis?
I've been playing "I told you so" with myself" and I won. Seems to me that O'Bama intends to stay the course on the same ol roadmap to peace in the middle east. This is not surprising. It's also just another iteration of our favorite international game: "love em and leave em." First they're our friends and then when we can't get any more mileage out them, toss them aside or have them conveniently voted out, or just take them out [guess who's coming coming to dinner for the election even if she has to run a campaign from afar -- starts with a "B"]. Musharef has served admirably -- and been amply rewarded --to "keep the terrorists" under control when in fact the vast majority of the population are moderate. Not to worry, we'll change all that and it will make for a grand big smoke screen on the road to "stability -- and democracy."
Great article. Those of us who are able to grasp the big picture appreciate your writing and ain't no way fussed up about your grammar.
For those who believe that O'Bama was trying not to appear "toothless" isn't that just what we need? More tough guy stuff? In the tough guy department, Hillary can probably beat the pants off him and can drop bombs with the best of them -- look who she's married to [and his miserable record on aggression, both overt and covert.]
Bruce,
Iran is going to go nuclear. It's in the tea leaves if you'll only look closely. Are you afraid they'll bomb the crap out of Israel -- or the U.S. -- first chance they get? We, and Israel, have plenty enough other enemies -- and making more by the minute -- who could actually do that.
You say, //"no one is willing to learn nothing"
I noticed that too and I am formulating quite am idea of the Middle Eastern Arabic Female sounding Saira Wasif through the little things that leak through.//
"Leak through." Is that anything like "trickle down?" or a "creepin commie-ism." Bruce, you are nothing if not consistent in your boorishness and ignorance.
I dont often agree with you or some other members but I dont hold any animosities against them. This is a discussion, not an argument.
Having said that, Pakistan is not a country that will tolerate US interference on its soil. It is short sightedness if people think of it on the same terms as Afghanistan or Iraq. Up to date Musharraf has cooperated with the US but has not allowed US presence within Pakistan. But for Obama to make comments about an ally on the war on terror is just absurd. Iraqis welcomed American forces because we were the only one who could help them get rid of saddam. With him out of the picture, it has become a hell hole for our troops. Pakistanis will not welcome any such force inside their territory. Even if Obama was issuing such statements to get himself back in the game, this was really childish.
Which Bruce are you talking about? Has any of you been to Israel? If the United States stepped off there leash they would go though the Middle East Like the Plagues of Egypt. They are a power unlike most, dont under estimate them.
Great post, and featured on GRAFFITI POLITTI!
> Pakistan is not a country that will tolerate US interference on its soil.
If the US found it necessary to interfere, you can bet if would be for good reason like ensuring nuclear weapons do not go to Iran or are not used for reasons other than deterrence. Musharraf is a good ally, but things in his country are capable of deteriorating in Pakistan and there is no way the US WANTS to occupy any of these countries.
The Obama situation, childish, I agree, especially the subsequent statements on nuclear weapons. Obama let himself get goaded, and now in order to make an attempt to right himself he will be making other statements, but he has been sort of neutralized politically now by his own desire to appear presidential and he ought to recognize it. I think he would get a lot of respect and traction to let it go now rather than to continue to get sucked into these things and ruin what credibility he has, it would be a class act for him to do that, especially given charges of inexperience and ambition.
Missy, what do you get out of calling me names in the middle of a really interesting discussion? I'm just learning that I guess I have to ignore you. I'll leave you with one dead certainty - you say Iran is going nuclear, when they get too close to that they will be down slammed hard, fast and final, 100% certainty. There are some things that the world is not going to live with, even at a very high cost.
Bruce B.: Israel is facing serious threats from Hezbollah(Lebanon), Syria and Iran. It is really nauseating that these countries think they can be accepted or bully their way into the world community by behaving like this.
I have been to Israel and If the middle east wants to fight them they better be willing to fight every Man, Woman, Child and Elderly person that can pick up a gun or a rocket launcher, Granade or any other explosive device. These people shoot and ask questions later. This all filters down to Oil. If we as a nation would get off our collective butts and create a new energy source to replace petroleum we could tell the Middle east to take a flying leap.
"If the US found it necessary to interfere, you can bet if would be for good reason like ensuring nuclear weapons do not go to Iran or are not used for reasons other than deterrence"
Invading a country is against UN protocol. But then again we did invade Iraq without their blessing and well... you know how it went. So yeah pakistan has nuclear power, and it might sell it to Iran. How about China that helped pakistan go nuclear.
The premise that Obama would Invade Pakistan is fallacious. That. Saira, is what is TOTALLY WRONG with this article, and your attack on Obama.
The war we need to win
America must stop fighting
the wrong war and start
fighting the war we need to win:
Take Action
barackobama.com/newleadership
After September 11th, we had a calling to write a new chapter in American history.
Americans were united. Our friends around the world stood shoulder-to-shoulder with us. We had the opportunity to devise new strategies, build new alliances, safeguard our values, and serve a just cause.
If only we had seized that opportunity.
Unfortunately, we did not finish the job against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We did not capture or kill Osama bin Ladin. And this administration drove us into war on the wrong battlefield with no appreciation of how many enemies we would create and no plan for how to get out.
Now, six years later, we are overdue for a major change of course in our foreign policy. America must stop fighting the wrong war and start fighting the war we need to win.
The next president must end the war in Iraq, refocus on Afghanistan and the Taliban resurgence, and pressure Pakistan to root out al Qaeda once and for all.
Most importantly, the next president must make sure that Osama bin Ladin and al Qaeda's core leadership are captured or killed. If Pakistan or any other nation won't act against bin Ladin and his cohorts, we will.
I agree that even if we stopped using Petroleum as our source of energy for our cars and homes there would still be a huge industry for Petroleum. Look around your area you are while typing in this sting. Everything that is plastic or rubber is made of Petroleum. Think about the Medical Field and the amount of plastic they use. Look at our cars, Plastic and rubber are everywhere. Would the Petroleum Industry profit as much if we stopped pumping gas into our Autos they would loose some profit margin but they would still be a huge industry. This is where the Greed Factor comes into play.
> Invading a country is against UN protocol.
If we follow the UN on many of these issues we end up not solving any of the problems that concern the West, and others. Yes, we invaded Iraq twice without obtaining the UN "blessing" whatever that is. We tried working within the framework of the coalition before when Iraq invaded Kuwait and we have the airforce pinning Iraq down for 10 years after. The coalition evaporated before the job was done. What about China?
I do not think that it is Pakistan what will or will not allow ... it is Musharraf who will not fare well if he appears to be catering to the West to the lunatic Islamic fringe in his country.
I just think this idea that we can tiptoe around these Islamofascist nuts and think that we can manipulate them, fool them or keep them technologically in the past is a wishful fantasy.
In the long run we either have to change them, or we have to kill them. Since they are not listening to anything we have to say, and since they are actively attacking us, and supporting attacking us, not to mention their general mode of operation is to attach and terrorize I think it makes changing them difficult.
So, the US stopping importing oil will have a minor effect in stopping of changing these countries. There is also no plan that is of suitable risk to successfully change our energy infrastructure as to be worth doing right now.
It is not the greed factor that is the problem, we always have known that the corrupt oil states are greedy, we just never thought that they would ever have enough arrogance and pride to consider and work towards world domination and a direct confrontation with the West.
The other aspect to this is plain and simple. Its about religous beliefs. You can fight oppresion, Terrorism, Genoside but in the end those people you are fighting for will still see you as the empire that they are hell bent to destroy. You will never unless you kill them out of existance change there religous beliefs or feelings about us as a Nation.
What is it with you and Islam? If the UN takes a long time to handle crisis then why do we ask countries to let the UN to inspect their installments? Why don't we simply dissolve the UN and handle crisis ourselves?
Bruce Becking:
Yes it is very plain and simple. It is about religious beliefs. Let's go back in time before the first Gulf War, were there any terrorist attacks by Muslims on US soil? After Gulf War, the US decided to station troops in the Middle East and the fall of USSR created one mighty super power that had no opponent.
My hypothesis is the US involvement in the Middle East and its presence in the Muslim countries created the Muslim radical groups (a paradox) I am not trying to defend the Muslim radical groups, I m just saying that they are our own creation.
> We will not change them, we must change how they are funded and the governments behind them.
Sorry if I find this a bit nebulous not to mention there is not idea at all to do it. We cannot even seem to change Americans behavior here at home ... modifying behavior on a massive scale like this has only been done once that I can think of, it was after WWII when Germany and Japan were smashed, when somehow we are able to turn them to be our allies.
Sorry if I am so stupid as to not be able to think of a way to do this with Islamonazism without the smash part ... it is not because I want to you know.
What's your plan Kay?
It is understandable, LIFE is so short in this world, who wants to actually take the chance of dying to do the cleanup of the world that is so desperately needed, especially when there is no history of these things working and there are so many lazy stupid people who take no responsiblity at all, not even volunteering to pay more taxes to get the job done.
The crisis of perception of the world in this clash of civilizations is a lot more like WWII than it is like Viet Nam, but Iraq specifically is starting to look like Viet Nam because we are bogged down and seem to be losing the battle, and because of Bush's failure to say anything inspiring but we have to fight them there to avoid fighting them here, which is ringing hollow to people, even if it is true. Obama makes some sense.
The Democrats are weakened by the loud faction that is against war completely, or the by the faction that just hates Bush, by the factions that wants to leave without thinking, by the faction that thinks there is no war on terror that it is our fault. All of these factions combine shout so loud that they enable Bush to maintain his political leadership because Americans in the majority are scared by the factions I mentioned. They are not stupid, they are scared and do not agree with their logic, and are afraid of what not-thinking would do.
This is why you get a lot of Democrats either straightforwardly supporting the far Liberal agenda clearly and loudly, but they do not get real political support and they never will, and many Democratic leaders who are paralyzed with the mob that is behind them and cannot agree on anything.
A good example of this is a radio talk show I listen to. There are getting to be a lot of Democrats who call in so angry that they say they will not vote in reaction to all of this. This is a rabble who while understandably and humanly upset and frustrated does not understand how the world and America works. And by understanding I do not mean being able to control it, control is a dream, we have a small choice here, between two buttons, but not to use it is disaster.
The "other" Bruce -- the one who says:
You say, //"no one is willing to learn nothing"
I noticed that too and I am formulating quite am idea of the Middle Eastern Arabic Female sounding Saira Wasif through the little things that leak through.//
"quite an idea -- leaking through"?
Bruce B.,
you say: they would go though the Middle East Like the Plagues of Egypt. They are a power unlike most, dont under estimate them.
[If "they" means Israel] True, and have been carrying out systematic terror attacks of their own with the U.S. at the end of the leash and supplying the necessary weapons and other goodies.
bruce K;
Here is another hypothesis. War has become a way of life now. The Clinton era was good in the sense that the economy was a lot better, and we saw stability. Now, the slight news of some unstability in the Middle east kicks down the Dow jones.
Read my comments above to Bruce B.
Bruce Becking,
I agree -- short sighted greed [for petroleum and other resources] seems to rule and there's no logical reason to think that the new 'go green' will be any different unless the American electorate wakes up and insists upon it. I'm not holding my breath. As to Iran or Israel 'going nuclear,' Israel already is and Iran will be too. It's not really like we get to decide this all by ourselves -- this time. We're paying and will continue to pay for making unilateral and illegal moves into Iraq.
Karl,
I got a letter like that too, from all kinds of candidates. They all sound good; it's the ultimate 'doing' that counts, though I like to think that I can read between the lines, and the words; e.g., O'Bama's letter: America must stop fighting the wrong war and start. . . ." [be a patriot and give give give -- I always write back and say, let's see what you're 'really' made of -- don't expect me to finance any ill conceived ventures here or abroad].
Same ol, same ol [sounds like Kerry] -- there are "good wars" and there are "bad wars," in the right or wrong place. War is war and innocents pay the price and hardly ever reap the so-called rewards, or loot! Both O'Bama and Hillary and all the other candidates know that perfectly well [O'Bama particularly is not naive about world affairs and history. The only question is: do they care? From what I've seen so far, I don't think so.
The issue of "empire" via "the long war" is very much alive and well as far as most of the candidates are concerned. As for fighting the war that will kill them all off -- not possible -- unless you have them penned up like the Palestinians and squeeze and starve them to death.
They are all [both sides] parsing their words to give them wiggle room for later on.
Oil and mother's milk -- very apt. If we wean ourselves from oil, will we know what to do with 'going green.' Perhaps we agree that oil is relative to ongoing war [but then so is BushCo's and the neolib's craziness about simply owning the world -- not to mention the profits of war as a good reason in itself.] A plan: Going green from the ground up will make a difference, but only if the ultimate control is in the hands of the people around the world -- not global corporations and their henchmen in government. We can dream, and try, I suppose.
There is no need to be worried about this speech of Obama and from other presidential candidates. In my point of view all candidates need something to gain domestic popularity and to increase their ratings. These are just speeches and US will not be able to attack Pakistan, though Pakistan's situation is really bad due to internal political situations and lack of leadership. US never threatened the Iraq or North Korea that they will attack them because their leaders have strong national powers and people of their countries are with them despite all their bad policies on foreign accounts.
Now its time for Mussharaf to think about it and handover power to political parties smoothly so that they should be able to have strong stance without indulging into any week positions on international scenarios.
We can expect more threats of war over Pakistan from US presidential candidates in coming months due to their domestic conditions because now they want to raise money for elections and need some new target country to create fear in their communities.
keep up the writing stuff. 10 from my side.
Yes, Randall you are 100% in your comments and its the current sequence of events which are happening in Islamic world which are enabling you to think like this.
I think you should study American history too and European history too, so that you should have better understanding of the radicalism of western people.
Another point to raise here is that its not good to see that one American is so arrogant and have no feeling about the blood of others.
Yes, its very good to attack on Pakistan. why not you attack this country by nuclear weapons and finish all of them? Its very easy to get rid of problem area and then stay in peace like someone did with Hiroshima.
I do understand and get Sheryl's point of view. Pakistan is where bin Laden is, and we have allowed him to stay there by not demanding his release. Bombing, however, is not the answer. Please let's not get into another war. And don't forget they DO have nukes.
Do you have any intelligence report on Bin Laden location? some authentic report and not the one that BA used to attack on Iraq.
I will suffice to say that if one American Aircraft Carrier deployed all its strength against a country it wouldn't have a snowballs chance in hell. We keep talking about what is happening in Iraq. Our soldiers are playing by the rules and the Insurgents are playing by there rules. When we quit playing this humanitarian role and get to no shit fighting you would see a difference. I feel sorry for every man and woman soldier that is put in a posistion to where they dont know who to fire at. Who is the enemy? Does the ground pounders (Army and Marine Corps Infantry) know? We need to make these people so afraid of us that they start doing there own policing and turning in the trouble makers. As long as we play patty cake with these people we are going to keep filling body bags. Sure go over there and fight but sorry we have to play the game of proportionality because we dont want to look like war mongers if we go over there and kick the crap out of them.
did you guys get a chance to check out todays articel on msnbc news regarding the statement made by Obama? check it out.
Good to have you here nauman.
I think, for the most part, this is BS.
I'll come back later and tell you why.
Why not?