While many democrats have issues with G.W's tendency to act first, and think later tactic when it comes to bombing other countries and such, the dem's Golden Boy Obama Barck states if Pakistan doesn't rid their country of Al Qaeda, we must. Is he serious? Pakistan is not only a Muslim country (and we're not exactly on their friend list), and have nuclear weapons. Clinton claims she would take the same measures. Is this the dems way of proving they aren't the soft spined party they are accused of being? Does he just want attention? Or is this a smart move? Should we invade part of Pakistan in order to find Osama and his henchmen? They have numerous training camps for Al Qaeda and as precautionary measure it may be the safest way to ensure Al Qaeda is weakened. When we attack, they do fall, but then grow increasingly stronger, and now we open the doors for a new, more powerful enemy in Pakistani Muslims turn terrorists. Pakistan is one of our closest allies, but can they be considered so by harboring these groups? Some say the dems just handed the presidential ticket back to the Republicans. Others say this was a smart move on Obama's platform. Meanwhile, the Bush administration is in talks with Pakistan, yeah that's right, talking, not bombing. What's wrong with this picture? Who knows? But we don't have the military manpower for another attack, or the morale. Forget global warming and being green. We're all going to die in war.
Read the Tribune's story here
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment