Site Presented By
Wednesday, Nov 4, 2009
should read "and a long history of hostility towards India" not Pakistan.
""If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said."
---The emphasis is on having decent, verifiable intelligence. Nowhere is he saying that would act nilly willy and without reasonable cause.
Ah, the words of a true phony!
How much you do for your students
You're so thrilled that they want to clean up the "garbage" that is politics
How you hate the spouting by pro-Obama and pro-Clinton supporters
How you hate blogging because of the nastiness
How you're just so idealistic and support Barack Obama for his wisdom, intellect, unity, hope and change.
And then, in one sentence, your true phony colors come out: so much for your idealism, hope, unity and change. You don't give a d*** about that. If you did you wouldn't turn around and lambast/bash somebody who is a Clinton supporter and tries to explain why.
Nope. Instead, you go below the knees, insulting me, my college "creds", my students, and my college. And you don't think you're an elitist? How, exactly, so?
The first sign of an elitist snob is to attack a peer whose credentials you don't like or won't acknowledge. Got something to hide? Apparently...
Well, good luck motivating your students!
Well-written piece about the demographics of last night's win in Wisconsin. Another key demographic variable is that of generation, and I'm glad to see that big media players are finally taking a serious look at the question of which generation Obama is a part of. The New York Times ran a piece a couple days ago (on Sunday) in which they pose the question of whether Obama is part of the Boomer Generation, Generation X, or the generation in-between Boomer and Xers--Generation Jones. Last week (in the Feb. 11 issue), Newsweek ran a piece in which the author (Jonathan Alter) made a strong case that Obama is not a Boomer, nor an Xer, but is rather a part of Generation Jones. I feel like this is a relevant and important question, and that the media will increasingly be exploring it, particularly given the huge age/generation difference between McCain and Obama.
@Person
Considering that Pakistan has nuclear weapons, borders on India, which has nuclear weapons, and a long history of hostility towards Pakistan and Islamic extremists who believe in martyrdom could well nuke the place starting what amounts to the end of times?Yeah. I do support what he had to say there.
So, if you were convinced a country had weapons of mass destruction and a propensity toward Islamic extremism, you would vote to give the President authority to use force if it proved absolutely necessary? Just curious.
It would have to fall under a few things:
First, I would try diplomacy - something Bush didn't do with Iraq.
Second the evidence would have to be strong as to those weapons being there. In Pakistan, it is pretty certain that they have got them, they are where North Korea got their nuclear technology from.
In Iraq there was no such certainty.
Third, there would have to be a real risk of catastrophe involved - Pakistan and India have been engaged in an outright war for a long time now.
Iraq and its neighbours had been at peace for a fairly long time.
Fourth, there I would have to be convinced as to the level of threat posed by the religious extremists, and that they are indeed religious extremists.
Saddam, as bad as he was, was not a religious extremist and the threat he posed previously, had been neutred.
Fifth I would require UN sanction to do it. If the UN says no, back off the evidence isn't good enough.
If all five conditions are met, then I would support an effeciently fought invasion followed by installing an American general as the head of the country in question in order to rebuild the place. I would not bullshit people by claiming that Democracy comes with a single election.
Considering that Pakistan has nuclear weapons, borders on India, which has nuclear weapons, and a long history of hostility towards Pakistan and Islamic extremists who believe in martyrdom could well nuke the place starting what amounts to the end of times?
Yeah. I do support what he had to say there.
Of course, this is an extreme case and the major crux of his Pakistan policy would be to avoid this situation.
Oh, and considering that Medvedev is currently the next guy to run Russia (Which is a major exporter of oil amongst other things,) pretty much on Putin's say so, whatever your feelings on Bush, if you think calling Putin soulless is a bright move, frankly you are an idiot.
Ah, ok, I see, so actually BOMBING another sovereign country that is supposed to be an ally is okay with you, but merely calling the leader-in-transition of one "soulless" is not? Well, frankly...
What, you think Putin's feelings are hurt? Only someone as stupid as GWB would make hurt feelings the basis of foreign policy, not Vladimir Putin. Come now, haven't you ever read The Prince?
Wait, you're an Obama supporter, so probably not.
Your stance would be that America was wrong to bomb Germany during WWII.
My stance is that in an extreme case which is highly unlikely to come about, sometimes war is needed. If it can be avoided, it should be, but there are limits to this.
It is not McCain singing "Bomb Iran" or Hillary voting for a measure that declared the lawful army of Iran a terrorist organisation.
It is acknowledging that there are times when war is called for.
Your stance would be that America was wrong to bomb Germany during WWII.
My stance is that in an extreme case which is highly unlikely to come about, sometimes war is needed. If it can be avoided, it should be, but there are limits to this.
It is not McCain singing "Bomb Iran" or Hillary voting for a measure that declared the lawful army of Iran a terrorist organisation.
It is acknowledging that there are times when war is called for.
An Israeli columnist issues a scathing indictment of Israel and calls on the U.S. to apply pressure.
Even when government officials purposely subject an innocent person to brutal torture, they enjoy full immunity.
Hey, guys: Are adult films making you bad at sex?
What was once depicted as a grave act of lawlessness -- Bush's NSA program -- is now deemed a vital state secret.
The loony wing of the Republican Party prepares for a big day in Tuesday's elections
Salon headlines in your mailbox
