Al-Qaeda elements in Pakistan to be attacked: Obama

[pkpatriotic]

Al-Qaeda elements in Pakistan to be attacked: Obama
Thursday, October 09, 2008

NASHVILLE, Tennessee: White House hopefuls John McCain and Barack Obama clashed on Tuesday once again on combating terrorism on the Pak-Afghan border in their second of three debates.

Democrat Obama, replying to a question from an audience, said: “If we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act and we will take them out.”

“We will kill bin Laden,” vowed the Illinois senator. “We will crush Al-Qaeda, that has to be our biggest national security priority.” In response, his Republican rival McCain said Obama had “announced that he will attack Pakistan.” Quoting early 20th Century US president Theodore Roosevelt, McCain said the commander-in-chief should “talk softly, but carry a big stick.” “Senator Obama likes to talk aloud,” said McCain, arguing Obama’s strategy would gain no allies in Pakistan. A cross border attack would instead rally Pakistani public opinion against the United States, he said. “We need to get them to work with us and turn against the Taliban and others.”

Cooperation would occur only “by coordinating our efforts together, not threatening to attack them,” added McCain. “I am not going to telegraph my punches, which is what the (Obama) did.”

In response, Obama noted that McCain had once sang a ditty at a campaign meeting with the words “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” and charged that the Republican had also “called for the annihilation of North Korea.” “That is not an example of speaking softly,” said Obama. “We have a difficult situation in Pakistan. I believe that part of the reason we have a difficult situation is because we made a bad judgment going into Iraq in the first place when we hadn’t finished the job of hunting down bin Laden and crushing al-Qaeda.

“So what happened was we got distracted, we diverted resources, and ultimately bin Laden escaped.” He said the terrorists were now raiding American troops in Afghanistan and were stronger now than at any time since 2001.

“And that’s why I think it’s so important for us to reverse course, because that’s the central front on terrorism. They are plotting to kill Americans right now. As Robert Gates, the defence secretary, said, the war against terrorism began in that region and that’s where it will end.” He argued that “part of the reason it’s so important for us to end the war in Iraq is to be able to get more troops into Afghanistan.

“But I do believe that we have to change our policies with Pakistan. We can’t coddle, as we did, a dictator, give him billions of dollars and then he’s making peace treaties with the Taliban and militants. What I’ve said is we’re going to encourage democracy in Pakistan, expand our non-military aid to Pakistan so that they have more of a stake in working with us, but insisting that they go after these militants.”

 

[RabzonKhan]

I think that an Obama-Biden presidency will be better for Pakistan. On the other hand, McCain-Palin (she is a religious nutcase ) offer nothing new they will follow Bush’s failed foreign policy, which has been disastrous for Pakistan and for our region as a whole.

 

[IceCold]

I think that an Obama-Biden presidency will be better for Pakistan. On the other hand, McCain-Palin (she is a religious nutcase ) offer nothing new they will follow Bush’s failed foreign policy, which has been disastrous for Pakistan and for our region as a whole.

Would you care to shed some more light on the highlighted part, as i fail to see how will he be any better then his counterparts for Pakistan?

 

[dr.umer]

I think that an Obama-Biden presidency will be better for Pakistan.

I disagree. I see no point in saying that Obama will be doing any good for this country just because his father was Muslim.

We as Pakistanis need to remain "united". "Unity" is need of the hour irrespective of who may come to power in US.

When we have weaknesses in ourselves, we are bound to compromise on our national interests with out reasonable thinking if asked by anyone whether McCain or Obama.

Pakistan can't do anything about who gets elected in next US elections as it's not in our hands. Now what we can do is that we can remain united on core policy issues and can take a firm stand. If we get successful in it than we need not to worry about choosing between McCain or Obama.

 

[Munir]

Obama is not better then any other neocon. I have doubts whether any of the candidates have serious intellectual capacity to rule the world.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Would you care to shed some more light on the highlighted part, as i fail to see how will he be any better then his counterparts for Pakistan?

Here are some of the reasons why I think they are better (lesser of two evils ) than McCain-Palin team:

1. Biden has put together legislation that will result in an annual $ 1.5 billion aid package to Pakistan

PM welcomes $15 billion US package for Pakistan -DAWN - National; July 31, 2008
Two senior Senators – Joseph Biden, a Democrat, and Richard Lugar, a Republican – presented the bill in the US Senate last month, urging Congress to increase US assistance to Pakistan to assure the Pakistani people that Washington desired a long-term engagement with Islamabad.

“We can’t keep jumping from one crisis to the next, relying on exceptional diplomats and military officers to save us from disaster,” said Senator Biden while explaining his proposal to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “We need a new strategy, to set the relationship on a stable course.”

The bipartisan legislation authorises $1.5 billion dollars annually for development purposes, such as building schools, roads and clinics, for five years, beginning 2009.

The legislation, “Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2008”, also advocates an additional $7.5 billion over the subsequent five years.

The non-military aid is a major shift in the US-Pakistan relations with the bill authorising a figure more than triple the current levels of non-military funding.

Senator Biden said the package demonstrated that the US was not a fair-weather ally but an all-weather friend of Pakistan.

2. Obama has criticized Karzai (McCain hasn’t) saying that "I think the Karzai government has not gotten out of the bunker and helped to organize Afghanistan, and the government, the judiciary, police forces, in ways that would give people confidence. So there are a lot of problems there,"

3. He has also spoken against the drugs, he said, “They are gathering huge amounts of money as a consequence of the drug trade in the region” and “We have to counter the opium trade by supporting alternative livelihoods for Afghan farmers”.

Again, McCain is silent on this very important issue.


4. Obama’s statements on Pakistan. Sounds reasonable to me.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden: The Change We Need | Sam Graham-Felsen's Blog: Obama Delivers Speech on 5th Anniversary of Iraq War
To succeed in Afghanistan, we also need to fundamentally rethink our Pakistan policy. For years, we have supported stability over democracy in Pakistan, and gotten neither. The core leadership of al Qaeda has a safe-haven in Pakistan. The Taliban are able to strike inside Afghanistan and then return to the mountains of the Pakistani border. Throughout Pakistan, domestic unrest has been rising. The full democratic aspirations of the Pakistani people have been too long denied. A child growing up in Pakistan, more often than not, is taught to see America as a source of hate – not hope.

This is why I stood up last summer and said we cannot base our entire Pakistan policy on President Musharraf. Pakistan is our ally, but we do our own security and our ally no favors by supporting its President while we are seen to be ignoring the interests of the people. Our counter-terrorism assistance must be conditioned on Pakistani action to root out the al Qaeda sanctuary. And any U.S. aid not directly needed for the fight against al Qaeda or to invest in the Pakistani people should be conditioned on the full restoration of Pakistan's democracy and rule of law.

The choice is not between Musharraf and Islamic extremists. As the recent legislative elections showed, there is a moderate majority of Pakistanis, and they are the people we need on our side to win the war against al Qaeda. That is why we should dramatically increase our support for the Pakistani people – for education, economic development, and democratic institutions. That child in Pakistan must know that we want a better life for him, that America is on his side, and that his interest in opportunity is our interest as well. That's the promise that America must stand for.

And for his sake and ours, we cannot tolerate a sanctuary for terrorists who threaten America's homeland and Pakistan's stability. If we have actionable intelligence about high-level al Qaeda targets in Pakistan's border region, we must act if Pakistan will not or cannot. Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, and President Bush have all distorted and derided this position, suggesting that I would invade or bomb Pakistan. This is politics, pure and simple. My position, in fact, is the same pragmatic policy that all three of them have belatedly – if tacitly – acknowledged is one we should pursue. Indeed, it was months after I called for this policy that a top al Qaeda leader was taken out in Pakistan by an American aircraft. And remember that the same three individuals who now criticize me for supporting a targeted strike on the terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks, are the same three individuals that supported an invasion of Iraq – a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

 

[RabzonKhan]

I disagree. I see no point in saying that Obama will be doing any good for this country just because his father was Muslim.

We as Pakistanis need to remain "united". "Unity" is need of the hour irrespective of who may come to power in US.

When we have weaknesses in ourselves, we are bound to compromise on our national interests with out reasonable thinking if asked by anyone whether McCain or Obama.

Pakistan can't do anything about who gets elected in next US elections as it's not in our hands. Now what we can do is that we can remain united on core policy issues and can take a firm stand. If we get successful in it than we need not to worry about choosing between McCain or Obama.

Sorry, but I don’t care if his father was a Muslim, I don't judge people on their faith but on their actions.

 

[metalfalcon]

Its all a election Bubble , all will be over when elections are over and one of the AMERICAN IDIOT is chosen as a President (Leader of the free world). There will be no AID no ATTACK no OSAMA BIN LADEN no Threats.

They will follow the same policy as BUSH's regime.

USA policies are govern by Foreign lobbies (Jewish especially), Agencies, Think tanks and Advisers. American Elections are Governed by Video tapes of Osama Bin Laden (Osama's new Album will be out in the MARKET when Elections are at PEAK)..... Coming Soon

We will see the continuity of same policies no matter who is the next President.

 

[Kasrkin]

I believe there is a major misconception held by people like Obama, they seem to feel the reason America is so unpopular in Pakistan is because they supported and befriended 'dictator' Musharraf, but the fact of the matter is that the situation is the other way round; Musharraf was pretty popular but his support for American was the single greatest reason for the decline in his support and means for his opponents to attack him. So Musharraf lost popularity by siding with the US in the WoT, not the other way round.
The vast majority of Pakistanis hate America (even if they dont mind sending their kids to live and study there) and more than 70% of us actually supported the Taliban, as compared to the US and NATO in the initial stages of the Afghan invasion. So Musharraf's 'undemocratic' decision was exactly what saved Americas arse. Therefore idiots like Obama dont really know what they are talking about...And instead of trying to work on that (lack of) support base, Mr Obama seem to rectify that problem by openly calling for bombings in Pakistani territory.

 

[metalfalcon]

I believe there is a major misconception held by people like Obama, they seem to feel the reason America is so unpopular in Pakistan is because they supported and befriended 'dictator' Musharraf, but the fact of the matter is that the situation is the other way round; Musharraf was pretty popular but his support for American was the single greatest reason for the decline in his support and means for his opponents to attack him. So Musharraf lost popularity by siding with the US in the WoT, not the other way round.
The vast majority of Pakistanis hate America (even if they dont mind sending their kids to live and study there) and more than 70% of us actually supported the Taliban, as compared to the US and NATO in the initial stages of the Afghan invasion. So Musharraf's 'undemocratic' decision was exactly what saved Americas arse. Therefore idiots like Obama dont really know what they are talking about...And instead of trying to work on that (lack of) support base, Mr Obama seem to rectify that problem by openly calling for bombings in Pakistani territory.

Yes mann well said, Even i used to Like Musharraf, But he committed many Mistakes just to please USA and i started Hating Him, Even i was Rejoiced when i heard him saying "MEIN AAJ MULKI MAFAAD MEIN IZTEEFA (RESIGN) DETA HOON"

These Presidential Candidates will keep on saying till Elections are over and one the Freak is got elected

 

[Kasrkin]

I rest my case

 

[dr.umer]

Pakistani-Americans ask Obama to ease rhetoric about bombing targets in Pakistan​

By Noreen S. Ahmed-Ullah | Chicago Tribune reporter
October 10, 2008

A group of Pakistani-Americans and anti-war activists delivered a letter Thursday to the Chicago office of Sen. Barack Obama, calling on him to cool political rhetoric about bombing targets in Pakistan.

"We are particularly concerned with your public pronouncements earlier this week in support of violating the borders of our ally, the country of Pakistan. . . . You must understand the sweeping dismay that your avowed support for U.S. military incursions into Pakistan . . . has elicited among untold numbers of Pakistani-Americans and peace activists across the country," the letter stated.

During his debate Tuesday with Sen. John McCain, Obama said he was not calling for the invasion of Pakistan. But Obama added, "If Pakistan is unable or unwilling to hunt down [Osama] bin Laden and take him out, then we should."

Ifti Nasim, host of a Pakistani radio show in Chicago called "Sargam," said the U.S. was "making a mistake" by "attacking Pakistan and making Pakistan your enemy."

He and other protesters criticized U.S. military incursions into Pakistan's tribal areas in the northwest part of the country to attack Taliban and Al Qaeda targets. They also decried the Bush administration's use of unmanned military drone aircraft, which have resulted in civilian deaths.

Nasim said McCain wants to continue the policy. The group plans to send a similar letter to the Arizona senator.

According to Said Umar Khan, his hometown of Mardan outside Peshawar in Pakistan's troubled North-West Frontier Province has seen a wave of displaced people escaping fighting in the tribal areas.

On Thursday, Obama campaign officials restated his comments from the debate this week. They said Obama understands Pakistan is an "important ally" and is calling for a partnership with the South Asian nation through increased U.S. aid for health, education and security.

Pakistani-Americans and other immigrant and anti-war groups such as the Chicago Coalition Against War and Racism are planning an anti-war march at 2 p.m. Saturday at Devon Avenue and Leavitt Street.

nahmed@tribune.com

 

[Iranium-235]

the canidates just want to get voters and to please israel

 

[dr.umer]

Sorry, but I don’t care if his father was a Muslim, I don't judge people on their faith but on their actions.

Its good to hear that you don't care but my friend I have come across many who are getting deceived by this information.

 

[dr.umer]

the canidates just want to get voters and to please israel

Rightly said Iranium-235. Israel is fundamental to both parties and her interests will always remain "primarily" taken care of and protected irrespective of who ever gets elected.