You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #14: I agree it is "his" policy but I do think the cabinet he chose goes right along with it. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
1776Forever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 05:57 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. I agree it is "his" policy but I do think the cabinet he chose goes right along with it.
Edited on Sat Jan-24-09 06:02 AM by 1776Forever
There are no "dissenters" in the bunch. Do you know of one? I don't know if I agree with this or not but I don't think it is unreasonable to question the tactics. Kerry had some good points about this I thought when he ran for President if you remember. He discussed them again last year:

Why Pakistan Matters: Kerry Speaks on Elections Experience

February 29, 2008

What happens in Pakistan doesnt just stay in Pakistan, Senator John Kerry argued at a Center for American Progress Action Fund event today about the implications of the Pakistan elections for U.S. national security. The Senator recently returned from a trip to South Asia, where he monitored Pakistans elections.

Despite remarkable violence in the run up to the electionpeople turned out in remarkable numbers, showing the commitment of the Pakistani people to democracy and stability in their government, said Kerry. While the elections were not perfect, they met the threshold of credibility. In light of the results, the United States must evaluate its commitments to Pakistan and Afghanistan. He argued that Pakistan and Afghanistan were the real central front in fighting extremism.

The United States needs more than a military strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and it must move beyond a Karzai policy or a Musharraf policy. U.S. aid to Pakistan must focus on more than military support, such as strengthening governance in Pakistan. Elections alone are not a cure all, nor do they make a functioning democracy, said Kerry, but they are an important first step. Senator Kerry proposed tripling non-military assistance from $500 million to $1.5 billion.

But money alone will not solve the problem. The United States also needs to engage in an active discussion about counterterrorism efforts with the new government of Pakistan. Senator Kerry expressed concerns that these new leaders in Pakistan may define the threat differently than the United States, seeing the Taliban as a greater threat than the Al Qaeda network. These differing perceptions could either help or harm American national security. As a nation, Kerry said, we need a stable Pakistan as a long-term ally, particularly if we want to strengthen security on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

A long-term strategy toward Pakistan also needs to include Afghanistan, which has not been sufficiently prioritized by the administration. The challenge in Afghanistan is largely a nation-building challenge, and the United States needs to expand training for the Afghan National Police, increase reconstruction and development assistance, contingent on good governance. The United States should also create a civilian reserve corps in the U.S. government to more effectively respond. Furthermore, the mission in Afghanistan needs a comprehensive plan to address the poppy problem and issues of corruption; and one person should be in charge of the international communitys disparate actions.

Its in our long-term security interest, said Kerry, to strengthen both Pakistan and Afghanistan and support efforts to create stable states. U.S. national security requires a comprehensive regional approach, and Pakistan must remain a key focus of U.S. efforts against Al Qaeda and terrorism worldwide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -I want Obama to explain the US killing people in Pakistan bos1  Jan-24-09 04:08 AM   #0 
  - He's explained it repeatedly  cali   Jan-24-09 04:34 AM   #1 
  - Please link to his explanations, thx n/t  bos1   Jan-24-09 05:09 AM   #4 
  - Did you follow the campaign?  MadBadger   Jan-24-09 05:11 AM   #6 
  - He's president now and should re-introduce the policy to national debate  bos1   Jan-24-09 10:21 AM   #22 
     - Its not a pre-emptive strike if they attacked you first.  MadBadger   Jan-24-09 11:06 AM   #37 
        - I'm not convinced these 'targets' actually 'attacked us first'  bigtree   Jan-25-09 11:41 AM   #85 
           - You're not convinced?  11 Bravo   Jan-25-09 11:55 AM   #88 
              - It's really not clear who ordered these strikes. You can only provide the military report  bigtree   Jan-25-09 12:28 PM   #90 
  - I'm sorry, but you're just as capable as I am, I presume, of doing  cali   Jan-24-09 05:16 AM   #7 
  - White House refuses to comment on strikes  bos1   Jan-24-09 10:50 AM   #33 
     - Ah, it's only the violation of a sovereign nation; how Cheneyan to not comment...  PurityOfEssence   Jan-24-09 08:32 PM   #76 
  - darn man give him some time!  democracy1st   Jan-24-09 06:10 AM   #16 
  - He said this before he became the nominee:  Freddie Stubbs   Jan-24-09 10:52 AM   #34 
     - thank you for the link.  bos1   Jan-24-09 11:25 AM   #49 
  - NO, he said he'd do it if Pakistan couldn't or wouldn't  PurityOfEssence   Jan-24-09 08:28 PM   #75 
  - So he's okay with killing children in order to hopefully kill a few Mosleem bad guys?  Balbus   Jan-25-09 12:40 PM   #91 
  - The Who and the Why are pretty self-explanatory.  MadBadger   Jan-24-09 04:41 AM   #2 
  - You thought that you would be enjoying world peace  FrenchieCat   Jan-24-09 04:45 AM   #3 
  - thanks for the sneer and the childishness. n/t  bos1   Jan-24-09 05:10 AM   #5 
  - Keep your pony, Frenchie. I'll settle for less corpses.  rug   Jan-24-09 05:37 AM   #9 
  - There is no good explanation for violating sovereignty and continuing preemptive killing.  rug   Jan-24-09 05:36 AM   #8 
  - I'm not sure that he's violating sovereignity  cali   Jan-24-09 05:42 AM   #10 
  - Pakistan has expressed great concern over US drone attacks  tekisui   Jan-24-09 10:39 AM   #27 
     - And we know that governments never say one thing publicly  hack89   Jan-24-09 01:52 PM   #62 
  - That's my view too. And if Obama is going to engage in this,  bos1   Jan-24-09 10:18 AM   #21 
  - The President has a good explanation:  Freddie Stubbs   Jan-24-09 10:55 AM   #36 
  - How exactly is this preemptive killing?  MadBadger   Jan-24-09 11:09 AM   #38 
     - How is it not?  bos1   Jan-24-09 11:20 AM   #44 
        - Are you kidding me? We've been fighting AQ and the Taliban for 7 years now.  MadBadger   Jan-24-09 11:22 AM   #46 
           - calm down. As I said, does the US have the right to bomb any country where supposed AQ are?  bos1   Jan-24-09 11:28 AM   #52 
           - You want NSA signal intercepts?  Pavulon   Jan-24-09 11:34 AM   #56 
           - 7 years of illegal war.  Duende azul   Jan-24-09 06:08 PM   #72 
              - Unless you're wearing a tin foil hat, you know what im talking about  MadBadger   Jan-24-09 07:12 PM   #73 
                 - You're just another warmonger, aren't you? How's your Halliburton stock doing?  bos1   Jan-25-09 11:38 AM   #84 
                    - I'll wait till you calm down and stop the ridiculous personal attacks.  MadBadger   Jan-25-09 12:49 PM   #92 
                       - you mean like "Because you're a fucking intelligent expert" kind of personal attacks?  bos1   Jan-25-09 01:08 PM   #93 
  - Huffington Post Missile Strikes On Pakistan Since Obama Presidency Report  1776Forever   Jan-24-09 05:43 AM   #11 
  - This is Obama's policy. Period. He made it perfectly clear  cali   Jan-24-09 05:48 AM   #12 
     - I agree it is "his" policy but I do think the cabinet he chose goes right along with it.  1776Forever   Jan-24-09 05:57 AM   #14 
     - I suppose it is true that neither his Secretary of State nor his Secretary of Defense  Occam Bandage   Jan-24-09 10:42 AM   #28 
     - He said he'd do it if Pakistan couldn't or wouldn't  PurityOfEssence   Jan-24-09 08:05 PM   #74 
  - What Absolute BULLCRAP !! You've linked to the SAME one story six times, using a different  K Gardner   Jan-24-09 05:54 AM   #13 
  - no idea what you are talking about  bos1   Jan-24-09 10:15 AM   #20 
  - Maybe al-queda shouldn't bring their war home to family and friends?  Life Long Dem   Jan-24-09 05:58 AM   #15 
  - He said he'd do it and he did it. No explanation needed . eom  kstewart33   Jan-24-09 08:07 AM   #17 
  - When a country has poor control over affairs in its own borders, this is legitimate.  Zynx   Jan-24-09 08:13 AM   #18 
  - Incapable ally is putting it mildly.  MilesColtrane   Jan-25-09 09:23 AM   #81 
  - clearly not because he views the world as a video game where he kills people at will  dmordue   Jan-24-09 08:13 AM   #19 
  - Obama said repeatedly during the campaign that he would strike AQ or Taliban targets  Occam Bandage   Jan-24-09 10:21 AM   #23 
  - yes you are right but now he has done it and it's up for grabs  bos1   Jan-24-09 10:43 AM   #29 
     - I don't understand the word "preemptive" there.  Occam Bandage   Jan-24-09 10:48 AM   #32 
        - This isn't in Afghanistan and the question is  bos1   Jan-24-09 11:13 AM   #39 
           - Iraq never attacked us, but Al-Qaeda sure did.  MadBadger   Jan-24-09 11:15 AM   #40 
           - That doesn't give the US the right to bomb any country where a supposed AQ person is.  bos1   Jan-24-09 11:16 AM   #41 
              - If we have actionable intelligence of a target, and Pakistan wont do anything,..go for it.  MadBadger   Jan-24-09 11:19 AM   #43 
              - "actionable intelligence of a target" = vague words for killing unknown people.  bos1   Jan-24-09 11:22 AM   #45 
                 - Because you're a fucking intelligent expert..  MadBadger   Jan-24-09 11:23 AM   #48 
                 - Time for you to take your chill pills. Bye  bos1   Jan-24-09 11:29 AM   #53 
                 - Look at FOIA info from the last decade or so.  Pavulon   Jan-24-09 11:25 AM   #50 
              - Right has nothing to do with it. US policy for decades  Pavulon   Jan-24-09 11:22 AM   #47 
           - It is indeed the fight in Afghanistan. Wars involving non-governmental entities  Occam Bandage   Jan-24-09 01:04 PM   #61 
  - Because Bush started all of it?  treestar   Jan-24-09 10:22 AM   #24 
  - this I don't agree with. Like the trials in Guito or torture, technically he could just stop it  bos1   Jan-24-09 10:35 AM   #25 
     - He could, but he believes that Afghanistan is critical, and has since 2001. nt  Occam Bandage   Jan-24-09 10:43 AM   #30 
     - gitmo won't be closed for a year - the order just started it  treestar   Jan-24-09 10:48 AM   #31 
        - Because it is irresponsbile to immediately stop operations in Iraq?  MadBadger   Jan-24-09 11:17 AM   #42 
           - Yes. So it would on the Afghan war. Which is what the OP  treestar   Jan-24-09 12:32 PM   #58 
              - wrong, I did not say to immediately end the Afghan. war. I said why are we killing in Pakistan  bos1   Jan-24-09 12:42 PM   #59 
                 - That's pretty much part of the Afghan war. Al Qaeda retreated  treestar   Jan-24-09 01:01 PM   #60 
  - Sounds like ENDLESS WAR to me. nt  TheGoldenRule   Jan-24-09 10:36 AM   #26 
  - Here you go  underpants   Jan-24-09 10:54 AM   #35 
  - Limbaugh's spiel: "Obama is going to own this economy & wars. Within 7 months he will be to blame."  AnotherMother4Peace   Jan-24-09 11:27 AM   #51 
  - to hell with Limbaugh  bos1   Jan-24-09 11:33 AM   #55 
  - Obama has been talking about doing this since the very beginning of his campaign..  DCBob   Jan-24-09 11:31 AM   #54 
  - It was wrong when Bush did it.  bvar22   Jan-24-09 12:22 PM   #57 
  - That is exactly the size of it.  Dreamer Tatum   Jan-24-09 04:11 PM   #64 
  - Now, I did not see mention of innocent people in the story  dbmk   Jan-24-09 04:37 PM   #68 
  - It wasnt wrong when Bush did it and it isnt wrong when Obama does it  deadlyaj   Jan-24-09 08:37 PM   #78 
  - I question the idea that it is necessarily wrong.  Zynx   Jan-25-09 11:49 AM   #87 
  - they are training terrorists in pakistan.  samsingh   Jan-24-09 03:45 PM   #63 
  - I agree, K&R  LittleBlue   Jan-24-09 04:14 PM   #65 
  - In this case because they are shooting at you.  dbmk   Jan-24-09 04:38 PM   #69 
     - They are shooting at you because you have no business being there waging war.  Duende azul   Jan-24-09 05:53 PM   #71 
  - Obama thinks that "the ends justify the means".  cbc5g   Jan-24-09 04:17 PM   #66 
  - The area they are attacking is only Pakistan by virtue of a line on a map.  dbmk   Jan-24-09 04:29 PM   #67 
  - North and South Waziristan are ungoverned provinces along the Afghan border  zulchzulu   Jan-24-09 04:46 PM   #70 
  - in the words of bush... Kill the bastards, kill the bastards, kill the bastards  deadlyaj   Jan-24-09 08:34 PM   #77 
  - We were attacked by a handful of people ....  bvar22   Jan-25-09 01:54 PM   #94 
  - Because he doesn't do cowering.....  Clio the Leo   Jan-25-09 08:12 AM   #80 
  - Well in the end, it's just another part of the mess that Obama inherited. nt  bos1   Jan-25-09 11:18 AM   #82 
  - He explained it all through the election; this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. n/t  AtomicKitten   Jan-25-09 11:20 AM   #83 
  - He's only been in office a few days  sampsonblk   Jan-25-09 11:46 AM   #86 
     - that's a reasonable view. thanks. nt  bos1   Jan-25-09 12:03 PM   #89 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC