Posted on 08/11/2007 5:15:26 AM PDT by qlangley
Britain’s new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, recently made his first visit to the US since assuming power. I want you to imagine that a candidate for President said that we all know there are terrorists in London and “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and Gordon Brown won’t act, we will.”
I think you can guarantee there would be a storm of protest from other politicians and the media. A Presidential candidate threatening to invade Britain, or make some sort of strike into Britain without the co-operation of the British government would be a massive story. All other candidates would disown the statement. Congress would condemn it. If it came from one of the frontrunners, that candidate’s rivals would make booming denunciations in public, and laugh themselves silly in private. One fewer rival to worry about.
Of course, Britain is a key ally in the War on Terror, and even John Edwards, who thinks the War on Terror is a bumper sticker, probably knows that. There are not many alliances as close as that between Britain and America. America depends on no foreign leader as much as on Gordon Brown, except, perhaps, just one.
America’s most critical ally is rather lower profile than Britain, but overall probably more important, and it is Pakistan . . .
. . . go to original source to read how Obama's remarks make nuclear war more likely
(Excerpt) Read more at quentinlangley.net ...
Yes. But when the NY times (read throughout the world for God only knows what reason) carries it as “some politicians” — like it was a considerable number of leading voices — hell, wars have been started over less than that!!!!
It’s things like that from Obama and others that will cause Hillary to look rational. We live in twisted times.
Don't you think the one we have alredy is enough?
Excused the typ[os — the cat was ‘helping’ me.
It’s all the same war. Just different campaigns.
Are you suggesting that if we take out the Osama BL terrorist camp in the tribal region of Pakistan, that Pakistan will declare war on us???????
You can't be serious..
>>Where does Obama get these crazy ideas?
The question is not ‘where does he get the ideas?’. It is just possible, in a nightmare, that we might have to do something that would endanger a friendly government.
But talking about such plans makes the nightmare all the more likely. Pakistan has nuclear weapons. You really want to destablise the current government and put the Taleban in charge?
I dead serious. Wars have strted before for the one reason -- one country sent troops into another without permission. THAT IS AN ACT OF WAR!
And would you bet your life that ANY Muslim country would hesitate to shoot back at "the Great Satan" for violating their sovereignty?
“Attacking your allies”—someone forgot to tell Clinton that when he ordered bombing of Yugoslavia in ‘99.
>>someone forgot to tell Clinton that when he ordered bombing of Yugoslavia in ‘99.
In what war was Yugoslavia an ally of America’s in 1999?
Correct me if I’m wrong but Yugoslavia and US were a member of NATO. NATO’s articles states that they don’t attack each other.
If we did, we quietly just do it. Not scream it all over the media and upset the locals.
You're wrong.
If Pakistan won't take care of the terrorists within its borders and won't allow us to take them out then they are harboring terrorists.
So our current position is what? we were just kidding?
So now, just because a Democrat reaffirms a key principle of the Bush doctrine, we're going to disavow it?
If we have intelligence on the whereabouts of top al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan then we should quietly just take them out - just like we have been doing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.