Get over yourself, Barack! so you didn't vote for the war and you want to hearken back to that fact at every opportunity. How many years ago was that vote? Your posture at that point has absolutely nothing to do with the present. You just want to trade that war (the one you didn't vote for in case anyone has forgotten in the last couple of sentences) for another one in Pakistan or a bigger one in Afghanistan. Let me see, we'll do better in a different location? Or do the world will stand still and listen to you because you are so wise and experienced? Your utter lack of maturity and experience is screaming from every pore in your body, but mostly from your mouth-- the one that is seemingly disconnected from your brain.

Does anyone realize that there were NO, not one Car Bomb before we went into Iraq?

And there were NO Al Qaeda there untill we moved in, and they've been recruiting ever since?

And that the main reason why these militias are fighting is because one or the other of them is supporting us being there?

Kind of shoots the whole "if we leave things will get a whole lot worse" excuse out of the water doesn't it?

It's all about the money, extended war means more war profits. And meanwhile the Democrat "alternatives" are picking up where the current administration left off, pounding the war drums.

Lets get someone different this election. Someone who will stand for the will of We the People.

Barrack Obama must be living in another world. Why does he keep saying that he didn't vote for the war. Of course he didn't.He wasn't in the Senate. He didn't see any intelligence related to it like the others did. He wasn't making decisions in a tense 911 atmosphere like the rest. He can't poke a finger at other people over this. It will come back to bite him big time.

Cliff, the point is he came out strongly against it and foresaw the problems we are experiencing today there. That's sound judgment. Read his 2002 speech. Hillary didn't even bother to read the NIE report, and showed very poor judgment in voting for the war,and voting against the proposed amendment that would have required further diplomacy.

LaChatte, I would encourage you to watch Obama's speech re: Pakistan. His comments were taken out of context. He is not proposing an invasion or occupation of Pakistan. He is saying he would take out AQ/OBL there if the intelligence pins them down and Pakistan can't get it done. I think most candidates would do the same.

It is really quite simple. If you are for the war, you have 18 Bush clones to pick over. If you are opposed to the war, you have Ron Paul. The free market will provide health care and competition will drop prices. (think of cell phones and computers) Get rid of the IRS and phase out the income tax. Everyone, you deserve it for yourselves to research Ron Paul's candidacy. Don't base your decision that stems from media hyperbole, go look into Ron's campaign with your own eyes and ears, and then make your decision.

Hey ABC, I think you are missing the real story here, which is Hillary's complete flip flop. She is now attacking Barack for his "irresponsible" comments on Pakistan.

Well look at what she said previously:

Clinton, in an interview with the American Urban Radio Network...

"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," she said.
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/8/2/worldupdates/2007-08-02T023102Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_-287732-2&sec=worldupdates

So in last night's debate, we saw disingeniousness at its finest. And all of you in the media are giving her a free pass!

So why did she freak out so much last night about Barack Obama "telegraphing" and his position re Pakistan??????

Anyone that did not go after Bin Laden in Pakistan or whereever he is found is not fit to be president. If it were wrong to "telegraph" it what do Hillary and the rest think they are doing when they pretend that they are only criticising Obama`s saying it? It may be news to them, but everyone knows that that in fact is what our policy is. Even Bush has figured out that we should,and has recently said he would, go after Bin Laden in Pakistan if the Pakistani`s did not. Seems Bush has finally figured out that his silly remark in 2004 that he didn`t know and did not care where Obama was hiding, ignors the fact that terrorists hide so they can plot to harm us. Romney may figure this out one day too but let`s hope he does his figuring away from the White House.

In the 4th line from the bottom above I meant Bin Laden.

striking alqaeda in pakistan would be regarded by the people of pakistan same as a strike against their country which if it goes this way would have devestating cocsequences on the whole region particularly afghanistan where nato is trying to cool the situation.if US strikes for any reason then no more Pakistan support in the region for the americans which will also hav its effects because pakistan is the only ally of US in the region and if US second eye goes to india then it has its own ally that is russia.if pakistan dcides to retaliate then a nuclear response might be an option,leakage of nuclear technology to other states would be another option.it US gov decides to send troops in pakistan then they will face even difficult situation then iraq because the people there wont accept US troops in their country.stretching US troops so much by sending them even in a vengeful state of pakistan would also be bad because the US leadership would also be keeping an eye on russia's intervention on european side regarding american missile sheild plan.pakistan after the US strike would definitely change its entirely foreign policy and then associating itself with russia,china and even india and would try to halt US interest there.no muslim nation would support attack on pakistani soil.US will be critcised for its attack on pakistan if no alqaeda agent found there because US cant fight alqaeda alone in pakistan it would need the support of the people of pakistan which is very very unlikely.last but not the least if US sometime later pulled out of pakistan then it would also be forced by pakistan to leave afghanistan because pakistan is a root factor when talking about anything in afghanistan from economic growth to invasion.therefore i think considering these points striking pakistan for any reason without the approval of the people living there.i think with juss the situation that US have created now it would entirely be foolish to attack a nuclear pakistan.president bush is right towards pakistan "not to offend pakistan but to work with it".

I'm sorry, but the people of Pakistan and the rest of the Muslim world should be the loudest people condemning the actions of muslim radical's. I truly respect all muslim countries and their right to believe what they choose but if in America there were whole religious factions that not only killed foreigners but also our own citizens in the numbers that islamic fascist do, those schools and churches would have been shut down and the teachers and pastors tried for treason.We would not need another country to clean up our mess.Stop bitching and clean house.These are your crazy cousins, not ours but if we find out where they are and you can't get them, we will. They have attacked us so they are owed.Either step in line or get out of the way but don't talk that sovereign crap.If you were so sovereign you would not have a bunch of crazies destabalizing your government. Shut up and root them out before we have to.That works out best for both countries. Lead by example and show the muslim world that you can live in a civilized global community ,stomp out religious extremism, and shine as the beacon for a modern "muslim" democracy.

Shanon:

Dont take it wrong, but I am a Muslim myself and the fact is that we ourselves in Pakistan are unhappy with what the extremists (and plz dont call them 'Islamic' extremists) are doing.

Most of the population in Pakistan supports the idea of freedom where no stranger can force you to live against your will. Its just that this part of population I'm talking about is almost always quite and not so vocal against the extremists. The reason is that we simply do not have enough time on our hands to do so. We go to our offices, we do our jobs, we raise our kids, we study and so on so we have enough to do than to force other people to live according to us.

Hope this helps!

Why do we have to play sheriff of the world? We should stop spreading ourselves so thin and bring everyone back home and work on the "terrorism" INSIDE our own country, should we find any. The planes on 9/11 did not fly from Iraq or Afghanistan or Pakistan or Iran or anywhere in the Middle East. It is impossible to eradicate all terrorism and make the entire world a safe place to live. We have to start from home and make this place a perfect place to live before trying to improve other countries. If citizens of other countries are unwilling to risk their lives to change their own government, we should not send our own people over there to die for their rights. Can someone tell me the sense in that?P.S. Wake up and smell the Ron Paul, people.

Its a fact that Pakistan is probably the only American ally actually doing something substantial and going 'out of way' for the war against terror and WE the Pakistanis are paying a high price for it which very unfortunately the American government or the people fail to realize. We have been gifted with instability within the country for the simple reason of supporting the US.Never did we have Al-Qaeda causing terrorism within Pakistan before but we do now. The Pakistani troops are laying their lives fighting for the US cause and I still do believe they are the best option for any operation carried out anywhere within Pakistan.

To Shannon,

If the American government really cared about its people why didn't it continue supporting Afghanistan after the Afghan-Russian war of the eighties when we were supporting people like Osama Bin Laden to give the Russians a Vietnam of their own. We helped radicalize the region but we didn't stay to stabilize it thus loosing the trust of many people.

If we are serious about fighting terrorism, whether by so called Muslims or others it won't be done without the cooperation of Muslims around the world. If you want cooperation then make it clear that this is not a war on Islam, which is what the term "islamofasicm" defines. If we show the people this is a war on anyone who kills innocents then we will get full cooperation or else we will never get it.

Also, our disasterous war in Iraq has destroyed our credibility in the world, how can we fight terrorism when we've killed so many innocent people in an innocent country: around 1 million!!!. The vast Majority of Muslims have always condemned terrorism and all the sane ones condemned 9/11. What moves people to militacy is injustice, and there is much of it in Muslim countries and regions occupied by foreigners. If the U.S. can help solve these problems then we can begin to truly fight the challenges of terrorism and instability in the world.

Its correctly said by one of the commenters above, 'Its a fact that Pakistan is probably the only American ally actually doing something substantial and going 'out of way' for the war against terror and WE the Pakistanis are paying a high price for it which very unfortunately the American government or the people fail to realize.' I believe we must not even think of moving closer to the option of striking Pakistan. That may prove desastrous for America. Besides, Obama's statement be read properly. It is only to take out targets where the intellegence confirms the presence of any terrorists. I believe even in this case too, no action be taken without taking Pakistan on the board.

This person who calls himself the best candidate for president should be aware of the fact that intelligence can be misleading resulting in misadventure; rings any bells? Wasn't it the intelligence that was blamed after not finding those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? By the way Pakistan (130 million) is not Iraq (26 million). I think this man is just naive

I agree with the earlier post that Ron Paul is the right candidate. He doesn't spout off trash just to try to please enough people to get votes. After checking his history (30 years of history!) it's obvious that he has a solid record and does not flip flop on the issues. He's mature enough to be able to lead the country back to greatness. Why would we even consider a questionable candidate who gives lip service to current events or ignores them all together when we can choose a man who took a stand many years ago and has never waivered.

We need a strong leader who stands for positive change, and that man is Ron Paul.

It's a fact that Pakistan is probably the only American ally actually doing something substantial and going 'out of way' for the war against terror and the Pakistanis are paying a high price for it which very unfortunately the American government or the people fail to realize. We have been gifted with instability within the country for the simple reason of supporting the US. Never did we have Al-Qaeda causing terrorism within Pakistan before but we do now. The Pakistani troops are laying their lives fighting for the US cause.

Iraq may have or may not have had weapons of mass destruction (debatable ... if you want to make it debatable ...) but Pakistan is a declared nuclear weapons state ... and Iraq and Afghanistan were both less than 30million each ... while Pakistan is a country of 167million people with the North West Frontier province alone making up 30million of it ...

I think they forgot the Russian minister who said after the soviet withdrawal from afghanistan in 1989 that "we would have won the war in Afghanistan if Pakistan was on our side"

Obama has also said that he would unilaterally attack terrorists in Pakistan if he felt it was necessary. It's ironic that Obama is now associated with a unilateral policy of preemptive war, yet we still primarily tend to associate McCain with Bush. I think the best arrangement would be to respect both Pakistan's and Afghanistan's sovereignty and allow them to work out their own domestic politics.

The US has played God countless times before in other state's domestic affairs, and it has almost always come back to bite us. We need to adopt a foreign policy that respects all other states' sovereignty, and allows for specific bilateral arrangements as needed without offsetting our overall multilateral committments.

This way, America can be the country that everyone else trusts. We can be the country that the world looks to for humanitarian assistant, economic assistant, technological assistance, and democratic leadership. Rather than what we are today, feared and hated by the international community.

How long can any state continue in such a way? What if we were spending $500 billion/year feeding, educating and healing the world and repairing our infrastructure? Who would hate us for that?

As it stands, we speak of allies in Pakistan. I'm guessing that will change very quickly once we start killing their civilians on a regular basis. Then what? Unless we intend to use nukes, or fight solely from the air, we can't stand against Pakistan in a traditional boots on the ground combat; our military is too small.

The Pakistani government does not want to lose American financial and military support. But a large portion of the Pakistani people hate America, and will side with the insurgents. We'll put our troops in an impossible situation of asymetric warfare they can't possibly win (sound familiar?)

America needs a new foreign policy; one that will admit the former was less than ideal. One that will ensure the all people that the US no longer intends to encroach on other states' sovereignty- something the greater majority of the world certainly does not believe today.

I had a talk about Kashmir issue with a Pakistani couple of years ago, for him those terrorist were freedom fighters.

He was like " No one is terrorist, they are all good people fighting for their freedom "

Now, the same person was complaining me about those terrorist ( No Islamic extremist ;)