I truly believe the whole non arab world should go to world with the iddle east and wipe your dirty race off the face of the earth, except for israel, they are God's chosen people.

you pakistani jerks, you do not realise that obama is actually doing Pakistan good, by cleaning up your Dirt-Taliban and Al qaida, for your sake and ours
Your corrupt leaders sheltered the Taliban, in the name of islam and both Musharaff who is a "Double crosser" and Taliban are screwing you

If we do not act now as obama has suggested you Confused pakis who do not even know what koran really teaches, will beg us on these posts and emails to help you

you pakistani jerks, you do not realise that obama is actually doing Pakistan good, by cleaning up your Dirt-Taliban and Al qaida, for your sake and ours
Your corrupt leaders sheltered the Taliban, in the name of islam and both Musharaff who is a "Double crosser" and Taliban are screwing you

If we do not act now as obama has suggested you Confused pakis who do not even know what koran really teaches, will beg us on these posts and emails to help you

you pakistani jerks, you do not realise that obama is actually doing Pakistan good, by cleaning up your Dirt-Taliban and Al qaida, for your sake and ours
Your corrupt leaders sheltered the Taliban, in the name of islam and both Musharaff who is a "Double crosser" and Taliban are screwing you

If we do not act now as obama has suggested you Confused pakis who do not even know what koran really teaches, will beg us on these posts and emails to help you

if america try to invade pakistan than i feel bad for america lol

Check out the ghastly images..seriously i couldnt eat my lunch today..seeing the pictures and d gallery here..
http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php

Check out the ghastly images..seriously i couldnt eat my lunch today..seeing the pictures and d gallery here..
http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php

Check out the ghastly images..seriously i couldnt eat my lunch today..seeing the pictures and d gallery here..
http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php

Here is the answer for all the Islamic Fundamentalists here..The whole world should see this and come to a conclusion against these Psychopaths..

checkout the link:
http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php

Here is the answer for all the Islamic Fundamentalists here..The whole world should see this and come to a conclusion against these Psychopaths..

checkout the link:
http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php

Here is the answer for all the Islamic Fundamentalists here..The whole world should see this and come to a conclusion against these Psychopaths..

checkout the link:
http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php

why doesn't the

bushCO and CRONIES want the United States PEOPLE to attack Pakistan?????

well, Mushariffraff or however you say his name...

is created in the image of NORIEGA/SADDAM...

a two bit dicktator that everyone hates and you could use as a reason to invade....

but not now....

right now the drug route through Pakistan from Afghanistan is veerrrrrrrrrry important.... money wise...

and bushCO and CRONIES don't want the world to know that the Al Quearboyz in Pakistan are infiltrators....not enemy...

Pakistan will be taken down, if the current US regime is allowed to retain position....

I guar an tee it...

thinks for your clear headed insights and not letting your CIA roots show Arkin.

.

well its the policy of US to divide n rule...thats what they did in Afghanistan thats what they did in Iraq and now just for the sake of political acheivements theses candidates are vowing to attack Pakistan. I think they have forgotten the statements of the Russian minister who said " we would have won the war in Afghanistan if Pakistan was on our side". Let me tell US they have yet not tasted the most bitter experience out of their mistakes. It was Pakistan who supported US baked cold war in Afghanistan. It was Pakistan who gave them thier air bases for attack on Afghanistan and Iraq. US always takes its means and when its all over they always turned against pakistan as they did in 1965 where they backed India against us. Thanks to China, the Great Friend, for giving their support otherwise US never wants Paksitan to be on the maps of the world. Let me tell US, at this stage when Pakistan is targettign its own people in tribal area , US is not able to take hold of them then what if our Army starts supporting them?? US will not find a place on earth to hide. Neither in Afghanistan nor in Iraq. This is the reality on ground. And they cant even think of attacking Mekkah n Maddina cuz the whole Muslim world will turn into an army of sucide bombers. Not a single army prsonnel or civilian will be safe on the surface of this earth. The only hope for them will b NASA n the only place to live would be MOON. I hope US will think a thousand time before attacking a soverign nuclear state.

well its the policy of US to divide n rule...thats what they did in Afghanistan thats what they did in Iraq and now just for the sake of political acheivements theses candidates are vowing to attack Pakistan. I think they have forgotten the statements of the Russian minister who said " we would have won the war in Afghanistan if Pakistan was on our side". Let me tell US they have yet not tasted the most bitter experience out of their mistakes. It was Pakistan who supported US baked cold war in Afghanistan. It was Pakistan who gave them thier air bases for attack on Afghanistan and Iraq. US always takes its means and when its all over they always turned against pakistan as they did in 1965 where they backed India against us. Thanks to China, the Great Friend, for giving their support otherwise US never wants Paksitan to be on the maps of the world. Let me tell US, at this stage when Pakistan is targettign its own people in tribal area , US is not able to take hold of them then what if our Army starts supporting them?? US will not find a place on earth to hide. Neither in Afghanistan nor in Iraq. This is the reality on ground. And they cant even think of attacking Mekkah n Maddina cuz the whole Muslim world will turn into an army of sucide bombers. Not a single army prsonnel or civilian will be safe on the surface of this earth. The only hope for them will b NASA n the only place to live would be MOON. I hope US will think a thousand time before attacking a soverign nuclear state.

CAN YOU ALL KEEP RELIGION AND POLITICS SEPERATE? I mean c'mon where do you get all this time from to shout all around "WE ARE MUSLIM WE KILL FOR OUR RELIGION OR WHATEVER CRAP" Islam does not support killing ok. whatever it is bottom line is religion and politics are two opposite things. and by the way I am a paki born muslim but I totally disagree with all those who combine religion with any action taken by politic leaders. and "whatever" you r really good with ur arguments "JAI" really needs to freshen up i believe he's been sleeping at his mama's house a lot lately

and Jai your comments are nothing dissimilar than of a psycho, think before writing please. US will NEVER dare to attack or even think of attcking Macca Madina becasue that country is MUCH powerfull than US or any other country. They have "inside" power; if you were not aware of the power of Arab then please do some research and then post comments. Thanks

and Jai your comments are nothing dissimilar than of a psycho, think before writing please. US will NEVER dare to attack or even think of attcking Macca Madina becasue that country is MUCH powerfull than US or any otehr country. They have "inside" power; if you were not aware of the power of Arab then please do some research and then post comments. Thanks

and Jai your comments are nothing dissimilar than of a psycho, think before writing please. US will NEVER dare to attach or even think of attching Macca Madina becasue "politically" that country is MUCH powerfull than US or any otehr country. They have "inside" power; if you were not aware of the power of Arab then please do some research and then post comments. Thanks

well, being honest living in NYC i can surely argue that going against pakistan will be a TERRIBLE mistake will ever make and all of you guys who just write their comments based on your background teaching system pelase get a life and learn to live peacully in the world. As far as Osama and Bush thing goes, I believe they both shall be suspected for the terrorism. Politics is a nasty world; we never get what you see or hear.

Sultan: You must be an Indian posing as a Pakistani, the whole idea is to prove to the world that Pakistanis are unbalanced and cannot be trusted with the nukes. In case you missed the reports, Pakistan has already handed over the nukes to USA.

Just remember US attack on Pakistan would not bring anything good to India, but in extreme hatred you tend to forsake your own interest.

What if Pakistan attack back on US, and bomb two are three cities with nuke, then US will not a super power any more. because us doller will fall and like a leaf from tree in winter so think before u act, pakistan is not Afghanistan. i know i this process pakistan will also destory. but think about yourslef.

Tancredo has his logic, his point is US should state any future terrorist attack on US will be responded by an attack on Mecca and Madina. This will deter Islamic Crazies to think twice before doing so, since the cost will be loosing mecca and madina (their holy sites). In dealing with
Islamic Crazies people like Tancredo how so ever crazy they are seems to look better

Aslam-o-Alikum,
Do you like this name, i believe NO. I'm a muslim born in pakistan, so it is my homeland. so the protection of homeland is my duty. Same as a muslim to kill and die for islam is any muslim's last will.
if u want to see your country and country men happy, don't even think 'bout to attack on Pakistan. other wise there'll b no one telling stories to kids.
If we are so called nuclear power, before that we are Islamic Power. Only one blow of this power'll wash u away like a flood water.
So u still have time, "Leave Muslim Countries as an invader & Pull Back your Army"
else
"No one will go back alive"
MIND IT.
Allah Akbar

Hi PakistaniTerrorism,

The difference is that Indian operations are not directed at the US of A.

Pakistan incubates terrorists, exports terrorists and harms its neighbors(India, Iran,Afghanistan) and allies (China, USA, UK) thorough the actions of its citizens.

It must be mend its ways or face the wrath of the world and get annihilated.

I am a Pakistani.Believe me i dislike BUSH and OSAMA.If Pakistan is attacked, i do not know whether nukes would be used or not but i would be in love with OSAMA.

Tom Tancredo must be a very sick person. None of the elected (or even non-elected) Muslim representatives have made a similar threat, even the arch-crazy OBL has not made a similar comment about Christian holy sites. How do these people get elected? I have met many people from Colorado they seem like nice folks to me.

Would such a threat have any effect on the terrorists? Absolutely not. Such an attack would be an heaven-sent opportunity for them to recruit as many people to their cause as they wish. Even people like Musharraf, Hosni Mubarak, and King Abdullah will turn against us.

On the home front, for the fear of retaliation, our government will have to round-up all the Muslims and send them to concentration camps. This may look like a good thing for people like Tom Tancredo, but in actuality this will bring the US economy to a standstill (as opposed to what Tom Tancredo may think, these people do not live off welfare). Gas price will shoot up to a level where very few people will be able to afford it, we will run out of heating oil and perhaps even electricity. Europe and Japan will suffer even more because they are more dependent on ME oil. Would they still be our friends? US hegemony will be gone in a second, Russia will probably step in to restore world order. Perhaps, this is what the neo-cons really want, after all most of them are ex-Trotkyists.

People with mobster mentality should have no place in our national (or even local) politics.

I read a post that mentioned the term "Collateral Damage" and not just in Iraq, but in Pakistan,Afghanistan. This is seldom mentioned in news reports or analysis in the media. We all know that when America wages war it does so only as a last resort. But this war is different because the enemy can't be found, "Collateral Damage" is a very important consequence because we are creating more enemies from neutrals. Yes, "Collateral Damage", I say it again because no one else does. Think about it and maybe you'll agree how important it is. I WISH THE MEDIA would share with it's readers how "Collateral Damage" has a way of alienating former friendlies and creating more enemies.

I'm sorry, but this is a joke of a column. You people are just rideeculos.

It is helpful to have informed comments from Pakistan and India on possible incursions by NATO or U.S. Forces into Pakistan. I think we need to listen to and work with local people in the region.
Looking back on the Iraq experience, I don't think it was a good idea to bomb certain places where Saddam Hussein was supposed to be located. He did not have direct operational control of his forces and was not that important as a target. He was later captured, and his death has not brought an end to the insurgency in Iraq. I do not think Bin Laden's death would stop the violence in Afghanistan or Pakistan.

Well.....at least Arkin didn't call the troops pampered mercenaries

May he (obama) read you, Mr Arkin...The razor is as sharp as Ockham's celebrated one!

Rakesh:
India has supported a Hindu terrorist organization LTTE in Sri Lanka, has created various terrorist organizations in Kashmir to suppress the freedom struggle there. India's secret agency RAW has been implicated in several terrorist acts in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal. Indian army itself is a large terrorist organization torturing and murdering innocent Sikh and Kashmiri civilians, anyone they murder is later declared a terrorist. Indian police conspired with Hindu extremists to murder hundreds of Muslims in Gujrat. Plus countless other anti-minority riots have been carried out by Hindu terrorists in various other parts of India. Not to mention forcibly converting Christians to Hinduism.

Your so-called Indian democracy (read Barhamin Raj by Nehru family) has created more terrorists than Osama ever could. Does this mean USA should attack India too?

Very rarely and some might say never have we had the most qualified person to be president of this country. But that is not the candidates fault; it is the fault of the majority of voters. There are many more qualified people to be president than any of the current candidates in any party. What it takes to be elected or what it takes to win the beauty contest is not always what it takes to be a great leader for all citizens. Our elections are like selling soap, with enough money and advertising most Americans will buy it whether it works or not. Case in point "W", a pompom waving cheerleader (fact) who was sold a war hero (fiction). A man who doesn't like to read and owns a cattle ranch, but not cattle? And Kerry and McCain who were war hero's (fact), but who were turned into cowards (fiction) and crazies (fiction). However if you say often enough many Americans will believe it.

Head On: Apply directly to the forehead.
Head On: Apply directly to the forehead.
Head On: Apply directly to the forehead.

Obama Attacks Pakistan; Pakistan Retaliates
Obama Attacks Pakistan; Pakistan Retaliates
Obama Attacks Pakistan; Pakistan Retaliates

Gee Bill, no pun intended, but you're jumping the gun on this one.

DC in TN

Posted by: Guy Fox

"Like Hillary Clinton and John Edwards (and all the rest) Barack Hussein Obama is nothing more than a political whhore who will say and do anything to get $ellected."

Mr. Kwame Dela:

Osama bin Laden was _not_ the mastermind behind 9-11. That distinction belongs to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. It's not at all clear what bin Laden or any Al Qaeda in Afghanistan knew about 9-11 before it occurred. Yes, many of those who participated in the 9-11 attacks "trained" in Afghanistan, but what was their training? How to use box cutters to highjack an airplane? That could have been done _anywhere_. Most of those directly involved in 9-11 were from Egypt or Saudi Arabia. But the U.S. needed to attack and destroy some country and Afghanistan was as good as any since they had no defences against the modern weapons in the U.S. arsenal. But why attack Iraq? To me, the wars against Iraq were indefensible.

It's telling that bin Laden, back in the 1990s, told us why he and other Muslims were so angry at the U.S.--we have a military presence in so many Muslim-dominated countries. He and others wanted the U.S. out of these countries. One can't help but wonder what would have happened had we withdrawn our military from those countries. Many of the governments of those countries, often brutal, oppressive, and unpopular, would have fallen. Would 9-11 still have happened? We wouldn't be permanently involved in wars over in Afghanistan and Iraq, and soon, probably Iran and Pakistan. For some reason, the U.S. cannot help but interfere with and in countries around the world--890 military bases on foreign soil worldwide. Thus the papercut of 9-11, a small number of civilian deaths when compared to just about any U.S. invasion in modern times (post 1950). If we insist on world domination, there is a price that must be paid and 9-11 was just a small down payment. After all the mindless flag-waving and applause for the wars over in Afghanistan and Iraq died out, it turns out that war is not so fun, even if the "body count" is very much in our favor.

Before Obama made his foot-in-the-mouth Pakistan comment, he said one thing that made sense to me. He said he would talk to terrorists, dictators, etc. But, everyone says we _don't_ talk to terrorists. Not true! We talk to, make use of, support _our_ terrorists and dictators as needed. It's not a sign of weakness to talk to terrorists that you have demonized and dehumanized and who have become your enemy. Rather it is a sign of strength. There may very well be a benefit to talking to Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda and the hundreds of other "terrorists" organizations. There is nothing to lose by talking to these groups; refusing to talk guarantees permanent war. The people of the middle east have suffered enough from the U.S. trying to "help" them.

Well is it going to be Obama vs Osama now?
I think Obama made a daring comment,which no American leader hasnt done till now.Why is that pakistanis are insecure,according to him,he wants America to target the terrorists and osama there not the Pakistanis.I think 10years is a lot of time given to pakistan to curb the terrorists,now U.S should take action against the culprits.Pakistan doesnt have a democracy,one general can rule it for continuous 8years without any approval from its people.He can act as a god there,taking away the chief justice.With this Pakistan doent have a stable government.Instead it's breeding most terrorists day by day,owing to the Lal Masjid crisis..The top criminals,Americas most wanted and India's most wanted are hiding in Pakistan.Still there government refuses to accept that..Unless untill these people are removed from the face of the earth,We the people of the world..shoul always be ready to face the war,which they are meting out on to the innocent people of our country,examples 9/11 and Mumbai train blasts,Madrid,Kenya...and the list goes on.

These terrorists are cowards and they cant wage a full out war on the military of other countries,instead they target the innocent civilians..Unless intil they are curbed,They will brainwash all the Muslims in the world in the name of Jihad....Hats off to Obama...will pray that he will win the elections in U.S..and wipe out the likes of Dawood Ibrahim,Osama Bin Laden,organistaions like Lashkar,Mujahideen..and the list goes on,as they change thier names day in and day out..

Tom Tancredo made a comment that it ought to be american policy that we will bomb mecca and medina if we are attacked with a nuclear weapon. while i am no fan of tom tancredo, it appears that for jihadists who only understand "islam", this threat may be the only valid deterrent

I can't decide whether O'Blahma is an authentic "poc" or just a "posc" (person of some color).

Arkin, I really have a problem with your blind support of Clinton in these columns and the way you are using it here to ridicule Obama.

I see many Indians on this blog who want us to attack Pakistan just like many Zionists wanted us to attack Iraq and now want us to go to Iran. The Indians blame Pakistan for the insurgency in Kashmir which is mostly the result of the brutal policy of torture and murder carried out by the Indian military and police in that area. Israelis used to blame Iraq and now they blame Iran and Syria for the uprising of Palestinians, which is fundamentally a result of brutal policy of looting, pillage, and murder carried out by the Israeli right-wing and IDF. If these countries want peace in their area they should give up brutal policies and treat everyone fairly and with respect. Blaming this country or that for your own failures is not anything useful. It is about time that US president and presidential candidates stop listening to these paid and unpaied lobbyists.

As for the actionable US intelligence, we have seen many devatating results of such intelligence. Bombing of a wedding party, killing little children in school, wiping out half of a village, and destroying much of Iraq. Remember yellowcake and Iraqi drones?

As regards to a quick surgical operation as suggested by some, let us not live in a fantasy land created by hollywood. Our Marines are good but they are not superhuman. If they venture inside Pakistan some of them might get killed, and some captured. Then we will send another wave to punish those who killed our troops and force a release of our captured ones. Many in this second wave will get killed and the little skrimish will soon become an all out war. A war in which mostly innocent civilians will be killed, as we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan. Will Pakistan military be in a position to support us in this venture -- a defacto attack on their own country? The answer is NO, Their best course of action would be to withdraw all troops from the area and try to defend the rest of the country from the onslaught of US troops. It would be foolish of Musharraf to let us continue to use our bases and CIA posts in Pakistan.

I would like to ask my Indian friends to control their hatred, US attack in that area, while devastating to Pakistan, will not be a good thing for India either.

I am from NWFP . The part of Pakistan thats adjoined to the tribal belt . I heard that speech Obama made , to be fair to him , I never heard him using the word "Invasion" .Still his tone was belligerent , arrogant and naive .

US admin. has struk targets inside Pakistan in the past . One such famously known incident took place in the tirbal region of Bajur where one such strike by US drone/s killed 70 students at a religious school .US and Pakistan government called them terrorists but local member of the parliament resigned in protest claiming they were students mostly kids in their teens . Pakistani politics is still being impacted by that incident even though it happened almost 2 years ago .After that incident , many local PASHTOONS over there vowed to be "suicide bombers" to avenge deaths of their people . Interestingly the recent pattern of suicide bombings in Pakistan shows that many came from that part of the country ( Recent wave of suicide bombing in PAKISTAN has killed more than 150 people and most of the incidents took place in my province ) .

For once we would like to see US laying down a policy on how its going to deal with the consequences of any such operation or " Invasion " . Does creating whole bunch of suicide bombers for taking out one Bin Laden sounds like a fair deal? UBL deserves to be punished but US shouldnt forget that in PAKISTAN's tribal areas it cannot get away with "collateral damage" . As somebody in a post pointed out the Pashtoons can wait their whole lives to take revenge.

The NIE estimate may have been right in part but I also think this was a poliritical trap set by the Republicans and many stepped right into it-thereby giving the Bushies some credibility, when they have none-not now and not in the past. NATO is nickel diming the War in Afghanistan. They should insert enough troops into Afghanistan to destroy the Taleban there, then build fortified positions along the border and mine area's along the border. Use wired mines that have to be activated by someone watching the border. Once all this is done, the majority of troops can return home. The Afghans need a small viable AF, armored vehicles and Special Forces.

To the ignorant people who keep repeating the 'his not experienced' rhetoric ,please go and read his well thought out plan on keeping terrorist at bay before coming here to display your ignorance. I live amongst you and I know majority of you do not even have passports just incase you might have to see the real world .Calling Obama naive, is like saying Bush is intelligent.Atleast he has studied about the world enough not to stick to one source of information. He schooled in Indonesia and like many of us who got the privilege of living in the developing world, he knows not all Muslims are radicals. Lets get back to Pakistan, a nation with 70% moderate Muslims, like most majority Muslim countries is hijacked by radical extremist minorities. Senator Obama said he is willing to work with Musharaff to take out Al- Qaeda and 9-11 mastermind Bin laden ,reining in control of the dispersed autonomous northern tribes who are harboring terrorist .This will also help Afghanistan take care of the insurgence by the Taliban and Al-Qaeda remnants hiding in the mountainous borders of the Pakistan Afghan border. The pragmatic things after 9-11 which Bush ignored was to pressure Pakistan to allow special forces in those regions to hunt down Al-Qaeda remnants, this current administration failed to do this because it did not benefit corporate profiteering ; making Afghanistan and Pakistan's volatile northern regions safe for the World in general. With the support of Hillary Clinton ,who with clearly laid out false intelligence, knowledge of the history of the middle east and experience in being first lady during her husbands two year term voted to give Mr. Bush the mandate to invade Iraq. Thus living Afghanistan and Pakistan which should have been our main focus to Bin laden and his cohorts to taunt the world with their periodical release of videos reminding us of their invincibility.

It is clear CNN and the Clinton spin media are doing all they can to smear Obama, the mostly ignorant and gullible Americans who can't read for themselves but take everything the media puts out as the truth, get on the internet to spew their pitiful sagacity with a few sentences they write because they have nothing else to hit the most promising Leader America will be lucky to have as president in a while. I'm glad there some Americans who see the need for a new leader to bring America back to its glory days, where it was feared and respected by friends and enemies alike.

Nuclear arms is here to stay but the will to use it has been curtailed by humanity. Until these inhumane terrorist started killing innocent people, it was a deterrent to keep the world safe from power hungry dictators and regimes from take over the free world. America has advance technology to counter and neutralize any Nuclear attack on its ally how much more on it's self. For those who don't know there has been so much money spent not on building nuclear pile but defense against nuclear attacks as well. Its the reason the cold war ended because no sane human being was to go end the world by starting a nuclear war which can never be won by any nation. This can't be said of the terrorist who wants to expedite their journey to heaven to be with their beautiful virgins. The US is still strong and a force to reckon with in the world. The world is changing and the US is in the dire need of a president who will be embraced by world . Once again the US have the chance to lead the world, the pacesetters it has always been and Barrack Obama is the one to take it there. Taking the fight on terrorism back to the real terrorist Al-Qaeda which is residing in northern Pakistan presently is not a bad idea. With the support of the UN , allies and corporation with the Pakistan people who wouldn't want to be associated with Bin-Laden and his cohorts, the true fight on terrorism will begin with the safety of the Pakistani and Afghan people at heart.
Feel free to argue constructively after thoroughly reading my post.Thank you

Bomb those pakis back to the stone age....

At least Obama has the courage and the intelligence to say the right thing. I hope he wins. US has had enough of idiots with Clinton and Bush.

US is scared silly of Pakistan (or for that matter any country that has nukes.) US has enough courage to attack countries that doesnt have them (Iraq and Iran being an example). When the Talibans come back to power or US is attacked again, expect the US to come running to India for help.

Obama is correct.

Pakistan is not our friend, nor our ally, when you look at thier ACTIONs not their words.

Nor is Saudi Arabia.

obama is toast. He nuked himself. Brace yourselves for thick-legs Hillary.

Look I am from pakistan and I am utterly shocked to read the basic premise that Pakistan is absolutely doing nothing at all.

Where on earth are you well-informed folks getting this notion from?

Wait, let me guess - CIA intelligence? the same intelligence that got you into Iraq.

Contrary, to popular myths that abound in the US, Pakistan has actually done quite a lot. ALmost every major al-qaeda terrorist in US custody was captured with Pakistans assistance, the same voluntary assistance has thwarted several attacks in US and UK, and in the process Pakistan has lost several thousand of its brave soldiers.

So next time, you obamaniacs open your mouth, you will be advised to read some current affairs.

Considering the state of American invasion of two muslim countries where they are badly stuck up I think it is very reckless to even think of invading or even attacking any country from far off places!!Attacking a nuclear power with 90% of their people have voted for moderate parties and you have only 5-10% people have voted for extremist parties. Why does American politicans want to destroy another moderate country I cant understand their politicians!! I would want them to study the history of the Tribal areas of Pakistan before even thinking of attacking this area it may worst nightmare where they would even forget Iraq and Vietnam.Tribal areas have been historically grave yards of all invaders since last 150 years. Its a 1400 square miles of most difficult terrain in the world. These tribes defeated the British in three major wars at their zenith of the power, Britain after their defeats had given special status to this region although British had no large problems in occupying India or any other country in the last two centuries. Pakistani army in 1960's was badly unsuccessful when they tried to subdue these very ferocious and excellent fighting forces of the tribes with Pakistan's latest weapons and therefore Pakistan has always given autonomy as per their constitution to this region, before Pakistani forces enter the tribal regions they have to inform the tribal heads that they are doing so.Pakistan is also very sensitive about this region as Afghnistan has been claiming this region as their own since partition as this region is inhabited by pakhtuns the same ethnic community that is in majority in Afghanistan on the otherhand it is a minority in Pakistan.Russians were also defeated with the fighting forces of these tribes when they attacked Afghnistan as they were also the major players in fighting that war and CIA from USA used these tribes effectively to defeat the Russuians. Since 2004 Pakistan army has lost nearly 1000 men in fighting Al-Qaida. The only success they had was when they had the coopertion of the tribes. So Pakistan leadership knows that to win a war in this region needs manipulation and local politics and not be collateral damage and destroying the peace of majority of peaceful inhabitants by attacking head on as Obama has desired. They know without voluntary enpowerment of these tribes no army can win a gureilla war in this region as is apparent from the historical perspective of this region that has been explained above. Without development,economic and educational revolution in this most impoverished region, I see no chance of winning this war in the tribal areas. Therefore I would ask the American people not to trust their own intelligence agencies or their political leaders with their dubious records:looking at their records in Iraq and Afghanistan whereas Pakistan has captured or killed more Al-Qaida top leadership than any other country. It is better to trust Pakistan as Pakistan leaders know how to tackle the stuation and have achieved more than what is stated off hand by the American media. The region is 1400 sqaure miles and Amercians would need to put in 100,000 troops and not 7000 troops as envisaged by Obama to just replace Pakistani troops and then fighting an unpopular war in a friendly country where even if they win it will be worst as they will lose the hearts and minds of the most important ally in that region!!!! Given the above reasons therefore Mr Obama I would humably state after this speech you may have proved to the American people that you are probably more dangerous than Bush for America and the world.

Tom -- "If they won't use it, why should anyone have any qualms about us going after these terrorists?"

If Musharraf doesn't act, it would be because, in his judgment, the action would provoke a coup or civil war in Pakistan. If the situation is that tense, then a U.S. attack could well provoke the same outcome, which could very well result in delivering nuclear weapons into the hands of Pakistan's al-Qaeda sympathizers.

That is, anybody who is even slightly familiar with the domestic politics of Pakistan understands that Senator Obama's proposed course of action would increase the risk of nuclear detonations in American cities.

Of course, Senator Obama, inexperienced and poorly-advised as he is, is as unfamiliar with the domestic politics of Pakistan as you, Tom. Which means, if he possessed even a modicum of good judgment, he'd have kept his mouth shut, instead of putting his foot in it.

people do you even realize that thousands of Pakistan army and paramilitary soldiers have died fighting terrorists in the tribal areas since 2001.

If anything, Obama and his followers should have respect for these brave souls who died fighting for peace and justice.

Shame on you.

I agree that Obama's prescription for fighting terrorism is rather simplistic, akin to the Bush Administration's approach in that sense. However, I don't understand why you find it strange that he would suggest America turned its back on Afghanistan after the Soviets left. Many credible commentators have made that very point, and explained why that abandonment by the U.S. has contributed to Afghanistan's - and ultimately America's - litany of troubles since. If seeking a source for such analysis, you need look no further than your own newsroom. In his award-winning book, Ghost Wars, Post journalist Steve Coll lays out the reasons why the U.S. should have stayed engaged with Afghanistan, and the lonely, but well-informed, voices within the U.S. government who advocated that course of action, and were ignored. Would Obama have remained in Afghanistan after 1989? I don't know. But we should all pray Americans elect a president who does have such wisdom

I thought obama was running on an anti-war paltform promising to restore american credibility worldwide.

hahaha,

the truth is that he is running for more bloodshed, war and hatred towards the americans.

kudoos obama, kudoos....

People of color...!

The world needs people of color like Obama to stand up in an attempt to correct the direction of the American ship that swayed off course, in my opinion, and lost its moral heading a couple of centuries ago.

On the other hand, I really hate it that people of color are willing to make the same mistakes, that have been made all to often by their white counter-parts in leadership positions in America (it would seem for two centuries now).

Although the world would likely be better off with an Obama at the helm, on the other hand being at the helm of this ship requires one to do many things that in my opinion, lack probity. A lack of probity is a requirement for being a president of these United States.

Obama shouldn't want to bomb Pakistan - those are your brothers man!

An ole saying, "you cannot change the world, but don't let the world change you". Obama's focus should be on helping to change the direction of the American ship, and the whole world will be beneficaries of new 'good will' America!

I agree that Obama's prescription for fighting terrorism is rather simplistic, akin to the Bush Administration's approach in that sense. However, I don't understand why you find it strange that he would suggest America turned its back on Afghanistan after the Soviets left. Many credible commentators have made that very point, and explained why that abandonment by the U.S. has contributed to Afghanistan's - and ultimately America's - litany of troubles since. If seeking a source for such analysis, you need look no further than your own newsroom. In his award-winning book, Ghost Wars, Post journalist Steve Coll lays out the reasons why the U.S. should have stayed engaged with Afghanistan, and the lonely, but well-informed, voices within the U.S. government who advocated that course of action, and were ignored. Would Obama have stayed in Afghanistan after 1989? I don't know. But we should all pray the American people elect a president who does have such wisdom

I think it borders on irresponsible for a person who claims to be running for the most powerful job in the world, to try and score cheap "macho" points with reckless talk of using force against yet another sovereign country without provocation. As a president, you have to be careful what you say in public, especially regarding the use of military force against a (large, and well-armed) sovereign nation. I understand that in an election, some hyperbole and dramatics are inevitable, but look at the firestorm of criticism Obama's remarks have ignited in the Muslim world. I think I understand the basic reason why Obama is threatening Pakistan: they don't vote in American elections. After the election, though, if Obama is lucky enough to win, he is going to have to deal with some hard feelings in Pakistan. And so will America.

The only way to make America safe is to stop bombing other countries, stop subsidizing the Palestinian occupation, stop sacrificing lives for oil. Period. That is why they hate us. Period. Freedom has nothing to do with it, and sacrificing civil liberties in American will not make this country safe. Look what the sniper did to the DC Metro area. That was two not-very-bright but determined individuals with one gun. As for borders, the best way to smuggle a nuclear device into the U.S. is to hide it in a large bale of marijuana. Enough said.

Like Hillary Clinton and John Edwards (and all the rest) Barack Hussein Obama is nothing more than a political whhore who will say and do anything to get $ellected.

America needs to nuke itself and relieve the world! Who gave America the right to unilaterally bomb any Moslem country it wishes? Flooding the middle east with arms is good cause just like arming Saddam and Al-Ghaedeh will come back to bite you hard! Obama or Clinton for president doesn't matter.. the shadow government infested by Israelis in American clothing are running your country.. I hate to burst your anti-terrorist bobble.. but 911 was an inside job.

Homeland Security military forces plan a virtual reality nuclear attack on Portland, OR. with the code name Operation Noble Resolve.Rep. Peter Defazio has requested information on this war game against the people of Portland and the highest levels of the GWB regime have refused to compley with congressional over sight authority. The last war game in the US was on 9/11 when the airforce interceptors stood down because it was just a practice run. Here is a link which gives the known details, please e-mail this alarm to all interested parties.
http://de.indymedia.org/2007/07/189454.shtml

Before we ask Pakistan to clean up the Al Qaeda MESS...let's ask our selves...
1) Are we successful in containing bombings, kidnappings and influx of foreign fighters in Iraq, 2) Why did we screw it up completely by leaving Afghanistan in the first place and attacking Iraq and 3) Have we been able to stop Mexicans crossing over the border by the millions every year into the US?

People let's get real. We the US, the most advanced and powerful country in the world, have failed time and again. How do we expect Pakistan to guard its border which is the most difficult and hostile terrain in the world and terrorists they are facing are happy to commit suicide. Let's get real.

Obama understands the root cause of terrorism . His comments come from this understanding. There is a witch hunt going on against Obama, America is full of guys like william whose first priority is to have a white president ,doesnot matter if he is to take the country in the WRONG direction. Welcome 2008 hypocrite HILLARY will be president. Racism wins again in the so called Free world. Don't forget this is the same American media that promoted the Iraq war, they are too good at getting things wrong.

How is this racism? he stupid.

Racism at work against Obama. People like william doesnot work care if pakistan is the country that trained , fed and gives shelter to the likes of Bin Landen . In a few words it is like the corporate headquaters for terror activities. For them more important is to STOP a black man from becoming President. Let me tell you if anybody can fix America's current problems it is Obama.

Racism at work against Obama. People like william doesnot work care if pakistan is the country that trained , fed and gives shelter to the likes of Bin Landen . In a few words it is like the corporate headquaters for terror activities. For them more important is to STOP a black man from becoming President. Let me tell you if anybody can fix America's current problems it is Obama.

Racism at work against Obama. People like william doesnot work care if pakistan is the country that trained , fed and gives shelter to the likes of Bin Landen . In a few words it is like the corporate headquaters for terror activities. For them more important is to STOP a black man from becoming President. Let me tell you if anybody can fix America's current problems it is Obama.

Hey Mark, Heres an iraq to you?

you americans cannot even control our country that you invaded . "I am simply being straightforward, and that's refreshing. the US should expect this from an iraqi if they can't control a part of their territory and that territory is being used as a base by bin Laden. How long exactly should the iraqis wait?"

do you still wannago into a country with nukes, eight times the size of iraq?

For obama, his followers and some other democrats to claim that american troops can do a better job than the 90,000 or so troops Pakistan has stationed in its tribal areas is both arrogant and foolish. Pakistani troops are local, they speak the language, understand the culture, have suffered heavy casualties.

What makes you think that an average Joe and Harry GI will do a better job if you cannot even control iraq?

Obama is simply being straightforward, and that's refreshing. Pakistan should expect this from the US if they can't control a part of their territory and that territory is being used as a base by bin Laden. How long exactly should the US wait?

Obama is inexperienced and will take us into a bigger war then we are in now. Please do not make this man president! There will be no tomorrow for any of us.

Tom S:

American attacks and interference in Pakistan will enflame the public, damage the Pakistani govt and boost militancy. That is why obama's threats to attack Pakistan are foolish and irresponsible.

A attack in Pakistan will create hatrism for US all around the world. There is a chance that Pakistan might retaliate although that would be just as foolish as igniting this whole mess.
And the assistance...It is nice to have the super power as an ally but who wants friends that won't be there for you, just like Pakistan was left alone in the mess of cold war.

(From wikipedia) To Justin and all the other war-mongerors. Try attacking a country that has nukes and grows its own food.....
-------

Pakistan is one of the world's largest producers and suppliers of the following according to the 2005 Food and Agriculture Organization of The United Nations and FAOSTAT given here with ranking:

Chickpea (2nd)
Apricot (4th)
Cotton (4th)
Sugarcane (4th)
Milk (5th)
Onion (5th)
Date Palm (6th)
Mango (7th)
Tangerines, mandarin orange, clementine (8th)
Rice (8th)
Wheat (9th)
Oranges (10th)
Pakistan ranks fifth in the Muslim world and twentieth worldwide in farm output. It is the world's fifth largest milk producer.

Pakistan's principal natural resources are arable land and water. About 25% of Pakistan's total land area is under cultivation and is watered by one of the largest irrigation systems in the world. Pakistan irrigates three times more acres than Russia. Agriculture accounts for about 23% of GDP and employs about 44% of the labor force.

This article is full of what if's and hypotheticals. Obviously set to cause reaction without any basis. How can you speculate what Obama would do in Afghan back in 87' or any of the other things that can happen.
Be more factual.
Your article is only inflaming and not well stated. You belong in a country where you are told what to write.

Justin: you need a lessons in South Asian Subconinental history.

Here are the facts. Pakistans GDP is 450 Billion$. Trust me a few hundred million dollars will not make a huge difference if Pakistan is attacked.

Why do I say that? because, throughout the 1990s Pakistan was under american sanctions which were tightened after the nuclear blasts in 1999. What effect did these sanctions have? Pakistan started collaborating with China with the consequense that both Pakistan and China have extensive military ties in aviation, arms manufacturing and ofcourse nuclear reactors.

Moreover, Pakistan makes its own food unlike Iraq, Iran and North Korea. It is among the top 5 producers of wheat, rice and cotton. In fact, these crops are among the biggest exports.

So, please enlighten yourself first and then you can go around voting for a candidate who wants to make more enemies than friends.

"Pakistan gets very little assistance from the US. Sanctions will do nothing but spew anger and hatred against the US. Afghanistan has done better than Iraq primarily because of Pakistan. Please do not let Obama destroy that."

how wrong you are...please READ THE SPEECH

"As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan."

so i guess hundreds of millions of dollars is "very little assistance?"

I think Senator Obama's comments were extremely accurate and one need guts to come out with such a view point in this day and age. It has been very clear from day one that Pakistan has been playing a double game with US in this fight for terror and still harboring terrorists within its soil (not only that also Pakistan uses its army to train the terrorists in its own soil and in afghanistan). Originally Pakistan started all these to acquire the land of Kashmir from India, but now the terrorist groups have taken over the Madrassas, army and the political parties in that country.
This country needs to mend its ways if Global Terrorism is to be stopped. Now how much of Senator Obama's words would turn into real action is anybody's guess, but the fact that he is bold enough to talk about this itself commends an applause.

thank you very much obama for attempting to destroy US relations with a major ally in the war on terror. We applaud your forsight ans statesmanship.

while I have a serious problem with these biased headlines focusing singularly on ONE LINE in this entire speech and omission of obama's comprehensive 5-point plan, I have to pick a bone with obama's PR team.

why aren't they criticizing the media for their unfair spins on ONE presidential candidate or coming to obama's defense???! why don't they mention that the head of the 9/11 commission, richard clarke, calls this a "sophisticated, and comprehensive strategy?" i've read so many blogs where obama has lost support b/c of these misleading headlines in which people are too lazy to read the entire speech. where is the PR TEAM TO STOP THE BLEEDING?

Rubbish.

Iraq will either survive as a nation, or be divided into two or three parts. We cannot make them come together as a nation, and we cannot make them like each other or cooperate. They will decide their fate. In the long term, I do not see al-Qaida surviving in Iraq because they will attempt to turn it into a Taliban style state. We have two major branches of Islam and a secular Baath party that will not tolerate the Islamic extremist agenda of al-Qaida.
As to Pakistan, it must survive as a moderate State, because it does have nuclear weapons. When I applauded Obama for talking with anyone, I did not mean insulting or threatening a moderate state. Neither Clinton nor Obama should be using foreign policy issues to score points in the elections. These are sensitive issues that require listening and discussing these problems quietly. They are both idiots in their fashion, and they don't know when to shut up. Bush is still the bigger idiot, but we don't need any idiots, large or small, messing up our foreign policy,

Iraq: 26 million people, no airforce or nukes, does not grow its own food, weakened by years of sanctions

Pakistan: 165 million people, has 100 nukes and missiles to deliver them, 4rth largest army in the world, has an airforce with f16s, grows most of its own food, GNP is 450 billion US$

so let me get it straight - obama wants us to get out of iraq and attack/ alienate a voluntary ally instead? how smart is that?

Iraq: 26 million people, no airforce or nukes, does not grow its own food, weakened by years of sanctions

Pakistan: 165 million people, has 100 nukes and missiles to deliver them, 4rth largest army in the world, has an airforce with f16s, grows most of its own food, GNP is 450 billion US$

so let me get it straight - obama wants us to get out of iraq and attack/ alienate a voluntary ally instead? how smart is that?

Iraq: 26 million people, no airforce or nukes, does not grow its own food, weakened by years of sanctions

Pakistan: 165 million people, has 100 nukes and missiles to deliver them, 4rth largest army in the world, has an airforce with f16s, grows most of its own food, GNP is 450 billion US$

so let me get it straight - obama wants us to get out of iraq and attack/ alienate a voluntary ally instead? how smart is that?

Iraq: 26 million people, no airforce or nukes, does not grow its own food, weakened by years of sanctions

Pakistan: 165 million people, has 100 nukes and missiles to deliver them, 4rth largest army in the world, has an airforce with f16s, grows most of its own food, GNP is 450 billion US$

so let me get it straight - obama wants us to get out of iraq and attack/ alienate a voluntary ally instead? how smart is that?

to sai:

pakistan is home to 170 million people. It has all sorts of people just like the US has all sorts of bigots, racists and violent murderers.

obama wants nothing but a world war.

I think Senator Obama's comments were extremely accurate and one need guts to come out with such a view point in this day and age. It has been very clear from day one that Pakistan has been playing a double game with US in this fight for terror and still harboring terrorists within its soil (not only that also Pakistan uses its army to train the terrorists in its own soil and in afghanistan). Originally Pakistan started all these to acquire the land of Kashmir from India, but now the terrorist groups have taken over the Madrassas, army and the political parties in that country.
This country needs to mend its ways if Global Terrorism is to be stopped. Now how much of Senator Obama's words would turn into real action is anybody's guess, but the fact that he is bold enough to talk about this while commends an applause.

Obama is a fool. US do not have the right to tell other sovereigns of what to do. Everything should be done diplomatically. You wonder why a nation such as Pakistan with so many people in the country fail to capture Bin Ladin. All war is psychological. Use of force should be the last resort. It is unthinkable that either US or Pakistan could not have though up of something that would quell terrorism. Something is wrong.

For the ignorants put there (including Mr Obama):

Pakistan is home to 165 million people. It is half the size of Texas. Imagine half the US population crammed into half of Texas......

In comparison, Iraq is about the size of Pakistan in terms of land but is home to a mere 20 million people, 1/8 th that of Pakistan.

And now you ask, why Pakistan hasnt captured Bin Ladin or isnt doin enough to combat terrorism? Go figure out..... If the US army with all its might cannot quell a civil war in Iraq, what makes Obama think that american troops will be able to quell a smiliar rebellion in Pakistan after he sends troops into Pakistan?

I do not see how Obamas strategy is smart or revolutionary? All I can see is a huge disaster in the making....

Pakistan already has close to 90,000 troops in the tribal areas since 2001. Many of these brave soldiers have died fighting al-qaeda such that Pakistan has the second highest number of casualties in the war on terror.

The tribal areas of Pakistan, some of the most rugged terrain in the world is home to several million people. The last time any army ever went into that part of the world was in the early 1900s when the British sent twenty thousand troops to quell a rebellion. Only one british soldier returned alive. Pakistan, for the first time in its history has stationed 90,000 troops in its tribal areas.

Sending american troops into Pakistan will achieve nothing but alienate the majority of moderate Pakistanis with the most likely consequence that Pakistan will withdraw its voluntary support for the US. How is that policy smart? Obama will get the US out of Iraq and land it into a much bigger mess in Pakistan.

Obama talked about witholding F-16s. Well, the f-16s had been witheld throughout the 90s with the effect that Pakistan collaborated with China and now both Pakistan and China make their own fighter planes.

Why hasn't Pakistan captured Bin Laden? Well, surely you can tell that the Pakistan army is no where near the US army in terms of budget and strength. Then why hasn't the US army been able to defeat al-qaeda in iraq? Is Obama willing to put 90,000 american troops into Pakistan to police the tribal areas? To Pakistans credit, it has captured more al-qaeda members than any other country in the world.

Pakistan gets very little assistance from the US. Sanctions will do nothing but spew anger and hatred against the US. Afghanistan has done better than Iraq primarily because of Pakistan. Please do not let Obama destroy that.

People seem to think that Obama wants to wage war against Pakistan. This could not be further from the truth. He wants to eliminate the terrorists that planned the attacks on 9/11. He wants to work with other nations and Pakistan. He would prefer Pakistan take out the terrorist threat on their own, but if they are incapable of that, we will step in. That does not require an invasion of Pakistan, just a small strike force or air strike to take out a target. Once that is done, our forces leave. No occupation and no war against Pakistan itself. If people would actually read or listen to the entire speech, they would understand this.

Barack's plan was actually quite clear and sophisticated according to a large majority of the experts interviewed by the Post just after the speach. Why the change of heart? Why the attack? What is it about Obama that is so offensive?

He is willing to speak his mind and say things like "I won't use nukes." What is so wrong with saying I won't use a weapon that kills indiscriminately over a huge area and leaves a legacy of environmental destruction that would last for centuries if not millenia? Is the cold war still raging? Do we really want to live our lives worried that another nation might retaliate against an american city because our president was stupid enough to hit them with a so called "tactical" nuke? How can something that is so permanently destructive be called tactical? That is like the army's hummer being called fuel efficient.

Remember 9/11? You know the day when 3000 Americans died? After that day we as a united country said to the world that we would hunt down the people responsible and that any country who didn't fight with us might be attacked. Where has our will gone? What do you in the press want? Do you want us to wait around while another 9/11 is planned and executed from the mountains of Pakistan? Are we so soft?

All Obama's speech did was reiterate the truth clearly and precisely. We as a nation will not tolorate a Pakistan that refuses to destroy the safe haven for the Taliban and Al Qaeda in its western mountains. If Musharraf is unable to remove this safe haven because his army is too weak we will do it for them. Remember in the last year the Pakistani army tried to assert sovereignty over those mountains and lost. The Pakistani army was defeated and had to retreat. All Obama said was that if they cannot destory these bases we will do it for them hopefully with their support but if necessary without it.

Since when did Musharraf become an American hero anyways? Remember Musharraf was the only leader in the world to support the Taliban until he read the tea leaves on 9/12. While the rest of the world condemned them and isolated them he was getting really cozy with them so he could appease his own islamic extremists. Remeber the Taliban... you know the government that wouldn't let any girls go to school...that had one of the worst human rights records in the world.

Musharraf doesn't exactly lean toward democracy or western values by nature. After all he was the one who fired his own chief justice so that he could stay in power and not have to obey his constitution. His own population forced him through protests to back down. They want democracy and understand it. They have a good record of fair elections and a thriving press that is willing to critique the government. (Apparently more willing than our press.) I understand why the Bush administration wouldn't be bothered by Musharraf's abuses of power. They are only slightly more obvious than their own, but why the mainstream media is giving him a pass I don't understand.

Your article is ridiculous and the attack campaign by the main stream media on Obama is becoming really offensive. Why is the press so invested in the status quo? That I do not understand. What other candidate is willing to be clear about his or her positions?

Good diplomacy requires a clear understanding of the positions accross the table and a willingness to talk. Who would you want to negotiate with if it was you accross the table? Somone who keeps secrets and who won't stake out a clear position or somone who stakes out a clear position and lets you know what it is? That is if you can even get to the negotiating table. According to Hillary we shouldn't talk to people that we don't like.

Clarity and a willingness to talk... why are these so bad? Obama is the only candidate with the courage to be clear and to say so. He is the one we want in '08.

Barack's plan was actually quite clear and sophisticated according to a large majority of the experts interviewed by the Post just after the speach. Why the change of heart? Why the attack? What is it about Obama that is so offensive?

He is willing to speak his mind and say things like "I won't use nukes." What is so wrong with saying I won't use a weapon that kills indiscriminately over a huge area and leaves a legacy of environmental destruction that would last for centuries if not millenia? Is the cold war still raging? Do we really want to live our lives worried that another nation might retaliate against an american city because our president was stupid enough to hit them with a so called "tactical" nuke? How can something that is so permanently destructive be called tactical? That is like the army's hummer being called fuel efficient.

Remember 9/11? You know the day when 3000 Americans died? After that day we as a united country said to the world that we would hunt down the people responsible and that any country who didn't fight with us might be attacked. Where has our will gone? What do you in the press want? Do you want us to wait around while another 9/11 is planned and executed from the mountains of Pakistan? Are we so soft?

All Obama's speech did was reiterate the truth clearly and precisely. We as a nation will not tolorate a Pakistan that refuses to destroy the safe haven for the Taliban and Al Qaeda in its western mountains. If Musharraf is unable to remove this safe haven because his army is too weak we will do it for them. Remember in the last year the Pakistani army tried to assert sovereignty over those mountains and lost. The Pakistani army was defeated and had to retreat. All Obama said was that if they cannot destory these bases we will do it for them hopefully with their support but if necessary without it.

Since when did Musharraf become an American hero anyways? Remember Musharraf was the only leader in the world to support the Taliban until he read the tea leaves on 9/12. While the rest of the world condemned them and isolated them he was getting really cozy with them so he could appease his own islamic extremists. Remeber the Taliban... you know the government that wouldn't let any girls go to school...that had one of the worst human rights records in the world.

Musharraf doesn't exactly lean toward democracy or western values by nature. After all he was the one who fired his own chief justice so that he could stay in power and not have to obey his constitution. His own population forced him through protests to back down. They want democracy and understand it. They have a good record of fair elections and a thriving press that is willing to critique the government. (Apparently more willing than our press.) I understand why the Bush administration wouldn't be bothered by Musharraf's abuses of power. They are only slightly more obvious than their own, but why the mainstream media is giving him a pass I don't understand.

Your article is ridiculous and the attack campaign by the main stream media on Obama is becoming really offensive. Why is the press so invested in the status quo? That I do not understand. What other candidate is willing to be clear about his or her positions?

Good diplomacy requires a clear understanding of the positions accross the table and a willingness to talk. Who would you want to negotiate with if it was you accross the table? Somone who keeps secrets and who won't stake out a clear position or somone who stakes out a clear position and lets you know what it is? That is if you can even get to the negotiating table. According to Hillary we shouldn't talk to people that we don't like.

Clarity and a willingness to talk... why are these so bad? Obama is the only candidate with the courage to be clear and to say so. He is the one we want in '08.

It might interest you to know first of all that Obama's plan is very consistent with the recent National Intelligence estimate, the recommendations of the Iraq study group and the 9/11 commission.

Second, Hillary Clinton agrees with Obama on targeting Al Quaeda in Pakistan based on actionable intelligence.

Indeed, as Tom points out Pakistan is not Afghanistan or Iraq and they would not tolerate intervention, although they did allow US troops and operatives to aid in various instances in the past. Nor is this solely Barack's misstep as literate points out, the other Dems and GOP have made similar uninformed comments for domestic consumption. That's the thing with politics, people say things that they either don't mean or simply to gain the support of a target demographic. Thus, to look tough on defense you sound off as if US troops can and will be sent anywhere based upon SUSPICION at the very least. Strangely enough, I find myself agreeing with Cheney (with whom I rarely agree with) as behind the scenes negotiating and "insistence" with promises of aid are the most effective way to keep Pakistan involved. And this violating of sovereignty of other states needs to stop UNLESS we're talking a United Nations mission as with Sudan on humanitarian grounds (even there the govt. has agreed to foreign peacekeepers). We keep this up and countries like China can justify violating Taiwan's territory and Russia can do as it wills in its neighborhood. Bad precedent to set. Increase aid to Afghanistan, set a timetable of withdrawal (and probably partition) in Iraq, and keep our current policy with Pakistan as it is. People expecting anything more are living in a fantasy land. And the more delicate (and ignored issue) of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict needs to be addressed if people want to see the region less hostile towards the US (that means not taking sides for starters and also removing ourselves from involvement there as much as possible). Hand in hand, we need to stop intervening in the region, keep after the remnants of Al Qaeda, stop backing the Israelis, and get our allies to stop selling weapons to everyone with a blank check. Live by the sword and you risk dying by the sword.

While I agree with all of the points made by Tom S. in an earlier post, the main problem with Sen. Obama's statements is his insistence that we would act UNILATERALLY in regards to capturing known terrorists threats. Indeed, the problem with Bush's foreign policy is his inadequacy in forming multinational coalitions in fighting the terrorist threat. While there has been nominal international support for US actions in this regard, the decisionmaking in the process has not been egalitarian. Personally, I believe that an International Counterterrorism Agency should be created that would act independently but in consultation with national governments. This way, military force would be able to be undertaken swiftly and without political ramification while also accounting for the need for multilateral support from the global community. If we think about some of the other remarks made during Sen. Obama's foreign policy speech, he has implied that he would be in favor of creating such an organization. Personally, I think that the media has misrepresented the focal thrust of his foreign policy argument (that we should cut through the red tape and bureacratic BS and make the right national security decisions regardless of political ramification) and made it seem like he is for regime-change. There is a big difference between attacking specific targets based on actionable intelligence and overthrowing a sovereign government based on a flawed neo-conservative political ideology. We cannot let our disillusionment with the War in Iraq impede us from enacting the practical strategies that we have ignored for the past decade.

Tom:

Obama's threats to Pakisan are an insult to a country that has lost hundreds of soldiers in the terror fight. He also made in an election campaign, for the sake of "sounding tough", that shows irresponsibility and weakness.

American attacks on Pakistan will discredit the Pakistani govt and bolster militants. Given the poor results of America's unilateral military adventures in Iraq, attacking Pakistan is a foolish option.

What Americans can do is share intelligence, and provide funding and equipment as well as international support.

Obama's comments were at best under-developed, at worst warmongering, and almost certainly motivated by poll numbers and focus group data.

Listen, I'm a supporter of this guy. I've donated money to his campaign, seen him speak, bumper sticker on my car the whole bit. But let's look at this from a strategic sense.

Why now? His aides have said that they have been working on this speech for weeks, but eveen given that the timing staill at least seems motivated by the punches he's received from Hilary. Why not do a slow build to a speech like this? Criticize Bush for focusing in the wrong area, criticize Pakistan for not doing enough, make your points about Afghanistan..all on the campaign trail. Let people get used to the idea, let it sink in before laying it out in a full blown policy speech.

You can put this stuff out there and let teh talking heads and blogs hash it out before just tossing it out there.

Are you dumb, silly jew? Is it so strange for a potential US president to threaten any country that harbors terrorists? Especially the ones who attacked us on that seemingly pleasant Tuesday morning? It is an affront to any proud American, perhaps an injustice, to not pursue our enemies where ever they are. This cannot be viewed as anything but patriotic or effective as a policy to go after terrorists. This is what we were told by our current president, right? Well he has failed and he, GW Bush, knows where they are. Congratulations Barack Obama for proposing to do what is necessary to protect us. Go back to Judea!

What part of "Sovereignty of Pakistan" you don't understand? How about "Sovereignty of the United States"? How would you like Russia or China or a conglomerate of nations invading the US? Wake up from your dream, sir. If attacked, Pakistan would defend itself and unlike Afghanistan, it's well-equipped and well-trained to do so.

Excuse the cut and paste, but why is Obama the only one who is being criticized his comments about Pakistan?
"Clinton said in a radio interview later in the day that she also would not hesitate to attack Al Qaeda targets on Pakistani territory. '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. And that will be my highest priority because they pose the highest threat to America,' Clinton told American Urban Radio Networks."
"Mrs. Clinton herself has made similar statements before, telling Bloomberg News in 2006 that when dealing with Iran, "I have said publicly no option should be off the table but I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table."
Edwards: We have a responsibility to go find al Qaeda and (Osama) bin Laden wherever they operate,' Edwards said after a fundraiser in San Francisco during a major foreign policy speech in Washington for possible U.S. military action in Pakistan against terrorists hiding there. Edwards said that if Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf can't control such operatives, 'we have to do it.'
The height of irresponsible journalism - sensationalist headlines and focusing on one aspect of a speech that has much more to say than that. Inexcusable.

Obama and American analysis of the Greater Middle East are often sorely lacking. The problem is that Pakistan is most likely trying to get Al Qaeda, but the terrain and some of the local tribesmen are aiding and hiding them AND they are no doubt moving back and forth from Afghanistan to Pakistan which makes it even harder. And the line between Taliban and Al Qaeda has, from the Western view, been blurred which is strange as two were distinct groups. Al Qaeda MIGHT be plotting some new scheme, but as they are constantly on the run and are having a tough time of it, I doubt that they can do much at this time. The current progress is probably alright as Bush kind of blew it back when it would have mattered and didn't press the issue before rushing into Iraq. The admin. saw an opening for going into Iraq by saying Saddam had substantial ties to the perps behind 9/11 (no evidence of that according to their own more honest administration officials). The tribesmen there live by a local pre-Islamic code (yes you can't blame Islamism on everything believe it or not!) called Pashtunwali which includes giving hospitality to those who come seeking it. The tribesmen know the land, are well armed (they even make their own weapons), and have a history of defying outsiders. The Pakistan govt. can only do so much without disrupting the domestic scene and antagonizing the tribes that are allied with the govt. It's easy to criticize, but frankly there's plenty of blame to go around.

For uncensored news please bookmark;

www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
www.onlinejournal.com
otherside123.blogspot.com
www.globalresearch.ca

Democrat Barack Obama spells out his foreign policy: "I will not hesitate to use force"

By Andre Damon
28 July 2007

This month's issue of Foreign Affairs carries an essay by Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama outlining his foreign policy. Obama gets to the point early on. Noting the catastrophe in Iraq, he writes: "After thousands of lives lost and billions of dollars spent, many Americans may be tempted to turn inward and cede our leadership in world affairs. But this is a mistake we must not make."

The senator's words must be seen in context. The foreign policy establishment that constitutes the key audience of Foreign Affairs generally recognizes that the debacle in Iraq represents a disaster for American military and geopolitical hegemony. In evaluating presidential candidates, these elements are looking for leaders who will not equivocate in the assertion of US primacy. Obama certainly gives them no cause for disappointment. To this end, he writes: "To see American power in terminal decline is to ignore America's great promise and historic purpose in the world."

How is this dominance to be preserved? Obama does not leave us in suspense: "We must use this moment both to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future. We must retain the capacity to swiftly defeat any conventional threat to our country and our vital interests. But we must also become better prepared to put boots on the ground in order to take on foes that fight asymmetrical and highly adaptive campaigns on a global scale." In concrete terms, Obama recommends adding 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines to the standing military.

As demonstrated by the above passages, Obama's quarrels with the Bush administration foreign policy are of a tactical nature; both Obama and the current resident of the White House share the overall strategic goal of preserving American hegemony by force of arms.

The senator's main dissatisfaction with the Bush administration, however, is the deleterious effect the occupation of Iraq has had on the United States' ability to project force abroad. As Obama would have it, the United States "must harness American power to reinvigorate American diplomacy. Tough-minded diplomacy, backed by the whole range of instruments of American power--political, economic, and military--could bring success even when dealing with long-standing adversaries such as Iran and Syria."

For the rest of this article please go to:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jul2007/obam-j28.shtml

Since Iraq issues are not yet resolved, America cannot pull out of Iraq that easily.

Waging another war with Pakistan is simply yet another wrath of bloodshed.

Can anyone think of any other peaceful means other than using the same killing tool those terrorists use?

Its a sad day when the best way for a predidential hopeful in a US election makes ridiculous statements to garner a few votes. Perhaps Barack Obama should venture into Pakistan or the Middle East to meet the people there before he decides that most of us are just a nameless variety.

Senator Obama's Pakistan comments were bold and right on the money.

How could a reasonable person take issue with his argument?

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and (Pakistani) President (Pervez) Musharraf will not act, we will."

What is controversial about that? If Pakistan is really an ally, they will take actionable intelligence and use it to bring the al-Qaeda leadership to justice. If they won't use it, why should anyone have any qualms about us going after these terrorists?

I don't buy the "sovereignty of Pakistan" argument when the "terrorist safe haven" angle was used to justify, in part, the Iraq invasion.

I also don't buy the argument that "Pakistan will become a fundamentalist nuclear power" if Musharraf is overthrown by radicals because we invade a region that is the armpit of central Asia in search of the perps of the greatest terrorist attack in U.S. history. Firstly, there's too many dominoes that have to fall in that argument, and secondly, it doesn't make logical sense. The Pakistani extremists who would be enraged by such a move are still, at the end of the day, extremists. And they are not going to suddenly become the dominant mainstream political faction because went after known terrorists in the remotest, least-cared-about region of Pakistan.

I was not surprised to see Bush apologists pounce on Barack on this issue. They are the same clowns who argued vigorously for us to get bogged down in Iraq versus the war we should be fighting. So their credibility is zero on this topic and they can safely be ignored. I was FLOORED to see democrats (little d used with intention) trying to use this very sound policy statement as support for the "Obama is inexperienced" assertion.

Barack offered A PLAN. What PLAN does Hilary have other than to sit back and watch the tea leaves blowing in the wind and pick her moments to get one-liners in? What PLAN does Joe Biden have? Chris Dodd? What is your PLAN people??

Barack Obama is right to go after the right targets. Others in the democratic field should state their positions as clearly as he has.

Tom