No, but it’s markedly different from the McCain approach. You’re the first person I’ve ever seen even make the argument that there’s no difference between the two in that regard - even if we can’t know what either would really do until one of them takes office.

We all agree that slavering in this country was wrong; as was the decimation of the Native American populations. We all agree that the Holocaust and several other other acts of genocide in the twentieth century were wrong. So when will we finally admit that American military intervention in the Middle East is also wrong?

Plenty of us already do, baby, trust me. We’re just not the ones steering the boat. We’re not even allowed near the wheel.

By the way, it’s worth noting that none of the specific atrocities you mention– not slavery, not the decimation of Native Americans, not the atom bombs dropped on Japan, not even the Holocaust– were widely considered atrocities by their perpetrators at the actual time they were occurring. It was only after the fact that some people gained some perspective (though even now, they each have their own vocal apologists, defenders, or denialists). Historically, any given group of people seems to be incapable of recognizing their own evil as they do it. So why should we, today, expect to be any different? That’s just egoism.

Hey Lisa, sorry I’ve been steadily pushing your thread further and further OT. I gotta stop commenting so much and just write some damn posts of my own already. I guess I just feel more comfortable tossing in cheap shots from the peanut gallery.

These two, the Symington and Glenn Amendments, were passed in response to Pakistan’s efforts to achieve nuclear weapons capability; but to little avail. Washington’s cool relations with Islamabad soon improved. During the Reagan administration, the US turned a blind eye to Pakistan’s nuclear weapon’s program. In return for Pakistan’s cooperation and assistance in the mujahideen’s war against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the Reagan administration awarded Pakistan with the third largest economic and military aid package after Israel and Egypt. Despite the Pressler Amendment, which made US aid contingent upon the Reagan administration’s annual confirmation that Pakistan was not pursuing nuclear weapons capability, Reagan’s “laissez-faire” approach to Pakistan’s nuclear program seriously aided the proliferation issues that we face today.

Not only did Pakistan continue to develop its own nuclear weapons program, but A.Q. Khan was instrumental in proliferating nuclear technology to other countries as well. Further, Pakistan’s progress toward nuclear capability led to India’s return to its own pursuit of nuclear weapons, an endeavor it had given up after its initial test in 1974. In 1998, both countries had tested nuclear weapons. A uranium-based nuclear device in Pakistan; and a plutonium-based device in India
Over the years of America’s on again off again support of Pakistan, Musharraf continues to be skeptical of his American allies. In 2002 he is reported to have told a British official that his “great concern is that one day the United States is going to desert me. They always desert their friends.” Musharraf was referring to Viet Nam, Lebanon, Somalia … etc., etc., etc.,

Taking the war to Pakistan is perhaps the most foolish thing America can do. Obama is not the first to suggest it, and we already have sufficient evidence of the potentially negative repercussions of such an action. On January 13, 2006, the United States launched a missile strike on the village of Damadola, Pakistan. Rather than kill the targeted Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s deputy leader, the strike instead slaughtered 17 locals. This only served to further weaken the Musharraf government and further destabilize the entire area. In a nuclear state like Pakistan, this was not only unfortunate, it was outright stupid. Pakistan has 160 million Arabs (better than half of the population of the entire Arab world). Pakistan also has the support of China and a nuclear arsenal.

I predict that America’s military action in the Middle East will enter the canons of history alongside Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Holocaust, in kind if not in degree. The Bush administration’s war on terror marks the age in which America has again crossed a line that many argue should never be crossed. Call it preemption, preventive war, the war on terror, or whatever you like; there is a sense that we have again unleashed a force that, like a boom-a-rang, at some point has to come back to us. The Bush administration argues that American military intervention in the Middle East is purely in self-defense. Others argue that it is pure aggression. The consensus is equally as torn over its impact on international terrorism. Is America truly deterring future terrorists with its actions? Or is it, in fact, aiding the recruitment of more terrorists?

The last thing the United States should do at this point and time is to violate yet another state’s sovereignty. Beyond being wrong, it just isn’t very smart. We all agree that slavering in this country was wrong; as was the decimation of the Native American populations. We all agree that the Holocaust and several other other acts of genocide in the twentieth century were wrong. So when will we finally admit that American military intervention in the Middle East is also wrong?

That said, I’m spoiling for a good fight on the subject of Obama and I hope I have time to come back this weekend and do it properly.

By the way, I wrote 18,000 up there, but I misspoke. It’s 80,000. He can say he doesn’t want South Korea-style military bases, autonomous Iraqi govt, all the rest, but it’s all empty rhetoric unless his actual plan calls for pulling all US presence out of Iraq. Currently, it’s nothing even resembling that.

The talks of invading Pakistan regard the western edge, where the Pakistani government’s control ranges from weak to non-existent. However, it would be an extremely unpopular move that would certainly raise a wave of nationalism within Pakistan that would likely topple its already very very shaky quasi-democracy.

I think the hounds have been unleashed. The forces of Empire want us to stay in a state of war for as long as the world can take it. As well as it just being so damn profitable for them, there’s that “Great Game” for the strategic ownership/denial of ownership of energy resources going on at the same time. Signs are looking up that the warmongers won’t be able to get the momentum needed to go to war in Iran right now. So, they’re already looking for other likely candidates, Pakistan apparently being in the lead. Regarding both Iran and Pakistan, Obama has been speaking from within the hawks’ framing of the situation– that the GWOT is right and just (but poorly executed)– lending that frame credibility and even support.

(Reading this as meaning ‘invade Pakistan’ doesn’t make a whole lot of sense - Pakistan is a relatively free democracy, not really invasion material. Whether he’d force them to stop turning a blind eye to militants themselves, or just send the CIA, remains to be seen but a full-scale invasion is wildly unlikely).

Not sure Obama is really that much better than McCain on Iraq. At least, not if you actually go by what he says out loud. True, McCain is upfront about wanting to keep permanent bases there, but–

1. Obama says he’ll only leave once things “cool down” sufficiently– a wiggly definition that lets troops stay indefinitely;

2. He says he wants to leave 18,000 troops there anyway, which can easily be expanded;

3. He has redacted all previous statements on his website critical of the “surge”;

4. First he was hawkish on Iran, and now he’s making supportive noises about invading Pakistan.

Obama seems to buy into the righteous vision of Imperial America just as much as the neo-cons. The only difference is that he’s claiming he’d be a more competent imperial manager. I think he’s probably right about that. But it’s a fact that doesn’t inspire confidence in me. If my dad is a clumsy serial killer, I don’t want my mom to “improve” on the situation by marrying someone who can do it more efficiently and never get caught. I want her to move out in the middle of the night and keep me somewhere safe. (Plus, probably, report Dad to the police.)

Perhaps it’s just an act, and he’s just saying these things to become president, and he’s actually a peacenik. If you one of the ones who think this, I’d like some support for your thesis, please.

At least McCain is honest about his evil. As such, in many ways he’s easier to fight.

I am pissed off with this (and a bit saddened, ooh-err, wasn’t someone on Punkass saying they were going to post about candidate affiliation and emotions and pornstars and stuff?), and am a resident rather than citizen so can’t vote anyway, but I am still in the Obama camp because Iraq is more important to me than the verbal abuse of women. (also, as with LGBT concerns, my hunch is that this may be used as a tool with which to extract more support, but that remains to be seen and isn’t the basis of my judgement call. Your judgement calls may/will differ).