Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Invade Pakistan?

A debate observation from an ever-perceptive friend:
This whole thing is sooooo utterly ridiculous -- that Obama is strong on defense because he wants to go after terrorists in Pakistan!
He's calling for an invasion of Pakistan.
You cannot attack a soverign country on any grounds -- the international and diplomatic implications are insane.
But the media don't care because of a tacit understanding that it is just something Obama is saying and has no intention of doing -- and they are probably right. This is Obama's way of trying to court the people who cling "to religion and guns."
And the press is giving him a pass on it! The media essentially are in on it and are just the mouthpiece of the Obama campaign. No questions asked!
If McCain has said this the headline would be "McCain Calls for Invasion of Pakistan"


K.O. Myers said...

"You cannot attack a soverign country on any grounds"

And Iraq was what, a falafel stand in the middle of the desert? How exactly is insulting the sovereignty of Pakistan in order to kill Osama Bin Laden any more insane than invading and occupying Iraq to stop a non-existent nuclear weapons program?

Anonymous said...

Dude, that is exactly the point: Obama is running on the message that Iraq was a mistake and we need change. So why would he go do the exact same thing in another country?

Because he doesnt intend to do anything except get elected and ride into the history books.

And the media gives him a pass. There is no scrutiny at all over what is a major foreign policy point? Obama is too much of a story for them.

Meanwhile, the only real justification for electing this guy is that will be a sign of major progress on race relations in America.

That is the way this candidate has quietly and almost subconciousless marketed himself.

"Change," after all, is a very big, gray word.

Radu Gherman said...

Anonymous, the difference is that we would go into Pakistan only to strike hard targets that we were sure would kill terrorists. We would not occupy.
Iraq was a mistake because it had nothing to do with 9/11. If we kill Bin Laden in Pakistan with a strike, it makes all the difference in the world.
Where do you hear "invade"? I heard "strike". As in we'll talk, and talk some more, but in the end, Bin Laden ends up with a Tomahawk in his lap either way. Low cost, low profile. Why isn't that doable?