• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Obama might send troops into Pakistan

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I will admit that in this matter I am a partisan bigot. I find Obama to be bright and articulate and grounded is a solid morality. I see, thanks to overwhelmingly abundant proof in every direction, that George Bush is a freaking disaster. I have no doubt whatsoever that a Bush invasion of Pakistan would be a total disaster and an Obama move there would make good since and might work. I have become a totally convinced bigot that Bush is a catastrophe and I consider those not to have my bigotry to be quite insane.
Heh, I'm the same way. Bush could tell me that 2+2=4 and I have to be honest I would not believe it. I think his incompetence is thorough and permeates almost every fabric of his being and his statements and outlooks on the world.

Anyway, I'm all about some limited focused incurssions into Pakistan with the blessing of their government. If they say no, then you don't go unless it's clear that somebody like bin laden is literally on your satellite feed this very minute and you can proove it, in which case screw whatever they say.

LOL you totally did not understand what he was saying buddy.
 
TI guess your too dense to realize that when I posted you had no link. ext

i wasn't commenting on the link...

i was commenting on the "out of context partisan bs" statement.

as for
I agree. Heartsurgeon, it would be my guess, would favor Obama's position and is, again in my opinion having some fun poking lefty pacifists in the eye with such a warmongering position from a lefty favored Democrat. So try to be a bit nicer, please. He does have feelings even if some of them are malicious.

Moonie, actually, i don't have enough information, either about Pakistan, or Obama's actual position, to really know what to make of it. The Pakistan situation is very complicated. I would on the whole state that we as a country have a very diverse point of view about most things, and unless the populace as a whole supports such a major military undertaking, that it will not go well. I believe as a nation we cannot be defeated militarily, but we can be defeated politically. Obama (or anyone that went into Pakistan) would have to get popular support for that position, and the die hard leftie Defeatocrat anti-war crowd would get down on him immediately....
 
Given the choice between having the figurehead of AQ running loose, or a nuclearized Pakistan falling into radical Isalmic hands, I'd prolly err on the side of caution and do what neccessary to prevent the latter.

The other surprising thing about Obama's remarks is the absence of the word "diplomacy". This situation seems a perfect place to employ it, rather than charging in and destabilizing Pakistan. The potential negative conseqences are very dire.

While I don't expect AQ to disappear upon the capture of UBL, Asia as we know it may be gone if those nukes fall into the wrong hands.

Fern

 
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: jrenz
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
That is interesting. Imagine, sending our anti-terrorism forces to where the terrorists are instead of where they are not. What a revolutionary idea!

:roll:
If Bush proposed this exact thing tomorrow, this board would be up in arms calling him an irresponsible idiot.
You believe that only because you are a die-hard partisan....-snip-.

See this thread

And this thread

I won't bother quoting posters' remarks about how crazy the "neocons" were for developing plans to do what you are praising Obama for now proposing.

Fern

Watch for some quick edits on posts in those threads with today's date.
 
Musharaf needs to be told that if he doesn't clean up the tribal areas, we will. And with the forces we have bogged down in Iraq now, if freed up, we easily can.
There cannot be a safe haven for Al Qaeda and Pakistan over the border, simply because Musharaf won't do anything about it.
 
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: jrenz
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
That is interesting. Imagine, sending our anti-terrorism forces to where the terrorists are instead of where they are not. What a revolutionary idea!

:roll:
If Bush proposed this exact thing tomorrow, this board would be up in arms calling him an irresponsible idiot.
You believe that only because you are a die-hard partisan....-snip-.

See this thread

And this thread

I won't bother quoting posters' remarks about how crazy the "neocons" were for developing plans to do what you are praising Obama for now proposing.

Fern

Watch for some quick edits on posts in those threads with today's date.

Expecting the dems here to steal a play from the republican playbook?
 
Obama will not even win the nomination, pointless to discuss IMHO.


Bowfinger - Invading a nation where terrorists were not (i.e., had no material presence) was reckless, wrong, and counter-productive.

Not all liberals opposed the removal of Saddam, I would be one of those. Do I agree with how the administration has handled the reconstruction, absolutely not. That does not mean I will simply fail to acknowledge actual facts, as many (including yourself bowfinger) have in their vilification of this war and administration.

Ansar Al Islam was in Iraq, where/who was brought to the attention of the UN security council by Powell. I realize that doesn't fit with your perception of reality, but it is true. I am sure you were not blinded from this fact by your partisan brainwashing though, perhaps you could supply a more accurate reason.



Here is an interview with residents of the village they occupied:

http://www.michaeltotten.com/

Posted by Michael J. Totten at 09:55 PM | Comments (32)
March 09, 2006
Zarqawi Was Here
BIARA, IRAQ ? The PUK?s Minister of the Interior ordered 20 heavily armed Peshmerga soldiers to go with me to the borderland mountain village of Biara. For years the village was occupied by Ansar Al Islam, the Kurdish-Arab-Persian branch of Al Qaeda in Northern Iraq. Biara wasn?t the only village seized by the Taliban of Mesopotamia, but it was perhaps the most important. It is there that the Jordanian-born Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had his last stand in Iraqi Kurdistan before the 2003 US-led invasion forced him out.

My Peshmerga weren?t really necessary. I told my translator Alan that I was embarrassed so many military resources were being spent on my account. I probably didn?t need any.

?It?s too much,? Alan said and laughed. He, too, was clearly embarrassed. ?It?s too much. The minister is doing this to be nice. He wants you to know that he cares about you.?

I introduced myself to some of my Peshmerga guards. There were so many it wasn?t easy to speak to them all. I had a hard time looking them in the eye. Jesus, I thought. These guys must think I?m the biggest wimp in the world. Biara isn?t actually dangerous. Zarqawi hasn?t been there for years. But it wasn?t my idea to bring them along. When the minister said ?I will send guards with you? I thought he meant maybe two guys. I cringed when I saw how many picked me up at my hotel in the morning.

Alan and I left Suleimaniya in a convoy. One truck bristling with Peshmerga led the way. Another truck followed. Heads turned as we drove through the small villages. Who might that be was the look on all the faces. I wanted to bury my own face in my hands. It?s just me! I?m not that important! It turned out, though, to be fun.


I don?t know if these guys actually thought I was a wimp because they had to come with me. They probably did. If so, they did a terrific job hiding it. Most likely they didn?t care. Driving up the mountains and into Biara surely beat boring checkpoint detail or whatever else they would have been otherwise doing.

We arrived in Biara and parked near the mosque founded long ago by a Sufi mystic from Turkey. Zarqawi lived in that mosque during the Ansar Al Islam occupation. I could tell most of the Peshmerga guys had never been there. They gawked at the mosque and at the mountains like tourists.

Their disposition had drastically changed since morning. At first they were all business. We will protect you said the look on their no-nonsense faces. Now they looked like boys. Cool! Field trip!

After a few oohs and ahs and the pointing of fingers they found a kebab shop and ordered some lunch. Alan and I went over to join them.

?I don?t have enough food for everybody,? the stunned shop owner said, clearly intimidated by the sheer volume of food he would have to prepare all at once. ?Try the tea shop down the street.?

Alan and I went to the tea shop down the street and settled in.


The proprietor happily made us Iraq-style tea (dark brown, overflowing, and packed with a wallop of sugar) and delicious kebabs.

There were a few other patrons in the tea shop and they eyed me, the obvious foreigner, with a mixture of curiosity and shyness.

?Do want to talk to some of these people?? Alan said. ?I?ll be happy to translate.?

Of course I wanted to talk. That was the reason I went there in the first place.

?Hello,? I said to two slightly goofy looking gentlemen sitting across the tea shop on the other side of the stove.

They both stepped across and we firmly shook hands.

?Do you want to know about life in Biara?? the one on the left said. He spoke perfect English and I did not need Alan to translate.

?Yes,? I said. ?Did you live here when the village was occupied by Zarqawi??

?I did,? he said. ?Life wasn?t good. We had no freedom. TV was banned. Women couldn?t walk outside without an abaya. There was violence. Anyone not affiliated with them was treated badly. During prayer time everyone was required to go to the mosque. If we didn?t go we were insulted and fined 50 dollars.?

50 dollars may not be a lot of money in the United States, but was a huge amount in a remote village in Iraqi Kurdistan while all of Iraq was under international sanctions. People needed the Oil for Food program just to stay alive.

?Did anyone here actually like Ansar Al Islam?? I asked.

?There were one or two very young people,? he said. ?I am from here. We never had anything like that before. I was joking with my friends in this tea shop. We were arrested, chained, blindfolded, and beaten. Laughing was banned.?

?They were like the Taliban,? his friend said.

?Did Ansar kill anyone here?? I asked.

?One person was tortured to death,? he said.

The tea shop owner joined the conversation.

?I was accused of being a member of the PUK,? he said, referring to the left-wing Patriotic Union of Kurdistan political party. ?So they put me in prison.?

Ansar Al Islam?s occupation of Biara and surrounding villages ended in 2003 when the Peshmerga launched a ground invasion with U.S. air support. Biara, including the Zarqawi-occupied mosque, was bombed from the air.

?How did you feel when the Americans bombed your village?? I asked the shopkeeper.

?We were waiting to get rid of them,? he said. ?We were desperate. They were the worst people ever. Many people had to close their businesses and leave this place.?

Two other men came into the tea shop. One wore a military uniform, the other wore civilian clothes. They kept to themselves at first, then came over to talk.

?Did you ever meet Zarqawi?? I asked the man in civilian clothes.

?Few people saw him,? he said. ?He covered his face with a cloth. He wasn?t the boss, though. Chafee was their commander. They had three commanders, actually. We are still afraid of them.?

Apparently the threat to this part of Iraqi Kurdistan isn?t quite over. Otherwise the minister of the interior would not have even thought to send Peshmerga guards with me. But the Islamists haven?t been back since the US and the Peshmerga drove them over the border into Iran. It was hard to imagine they would dare try to come back again without getting themselves killed the instant they arrived.

?When the US attacked,? he said, ?they escaped to an Iranian village. Then Iran sent them to Kirkuk. One guy was arrested in Kirkuk and sent back to Iran. Then Iran sent him back to Kirkuk again.?
 
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Obama only has one thing going for him, he wasn't in office to vote to go to Iraq.

Yeah and thankfully revisionist history does not trump facts. No one voted to go to Iraq.

You just revised history in that statement. Got a problem facing the facts and truth about your heroes?

No one voted to go into Iraq. They voted to give Bush authority to go in there, but they told him to use it cautiously. After the events of 9/11, congress was willing to give bush more power, because it allowed more flexibility. Too bad Bush abused it, and went to war, despite the warnings of many democrats, including Hillary Clinton.
 
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Obama only has one thing going for him, he wasn't in office to vote to go to Iraq.

Yeah and thankfully revisionist history does not trump facts. No one voted to go to Iraq.

You just revised history in that statement. Got a problem facing the facts and truth about your heroes?

No one voted to go into Iraq.

There would be no war in Iraq if not for Democratic support of that war. You can deny it all you want, the record stands for recorded history.

As for the sudden appearance of Demo-Hawks, just read this thread. There are plenty of leaves blowing in the wind at their master's new whim.
 
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Obama only has one thing going for him, he wasn't in office to vote to go to Iraq.

Yeah and thankfully revisionist history does not trump facts. No one voted to go to Iraq.

You just revised history in that statement. Got a problem facing the facts and truth about your heroes?

No one voted to go into Iraq.

There would be no war in Iraq if not for Democratic support of that war. You can deny it all you want, the record stands for recorded history.

As for the sudden appearance of Demo-Hawks, just read this thread. There are plenty of leaves blowing in the wind at their master's new whim.

Are we on the same planet? Many democrats didn't support the war. Bush and Donny went in there on their own.
 
Smart move on Obama's part...he is challenging Clinton's more guarded and reserved stance when it comes to hunting down terrorists.

We all know that Al Quaida, the REAL threat to American interests, is marshalling its forces in the remote mountain villages of Pakistan...we all know that, if left unchecked, Al Quaida will regain its pre-9/11 strength and have the ability to plan further attacks on American soil, or elsewhere, without fear of attack or reprisal.

The Pakistan question should be a crucial centerpiece to the 2008 election, and I am glad Obama has the courage to tackle it...whether or not he has the audacity to actually pursue such an agenda once elected is another story.
 
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
TI guess your too dense to realize that when I posted you had no link. ext

i wasn't commenting on the link...

i was commenting on the "out of context partisan bs" statement.

as for
I agree. Heartsurgeon, it would be my guess, would favor Obama's position and is, again in my opinion having some fun poking lefty pacifists in the eye with such a warmongering position from a lefty favored Democrat. So try to be a bit nicer, please. He does have feelings even if some of them are malicious.

Moonie, actually, i don't have enough information, either about Pakistan, or Obama's actual position, to really know what to make of it. The Pakistan situation is very complicated. I would on the whole state that we as a country have a very diverse point of view about most things, and unless the populace as a whole supports such a major military undertaking, that it will not go well. I believe as a nation we cannot be defeated militarily, but we can be defeated politically. Obama (or anyone that went into Pakistan) would have to get popular support for that position, and the die hard leftie Defeatocrat anti-war crowd would get down on him immediately....

I agree. I know, however, that I can listen to Obama but I won't listen to Bush. Right or wrong, I'm convinced the guy would screw it up.
 
Originally posted by: Lemon law
To a certain extent Obama adds some new ideas to the ways to fight terrorists, but give heartsurgeon his due, I for one think Obama is doing some ill thought out shooting off of his mouth. Its one thing to pressure Pakistan for permission to operate troops on their soil and another thing to do so over their objections with Obama pushing very hard to get on the wrong side of the line.

But its very early yet and all candidates will make many "I am a uniter not a divider" type promises. And at least in the case of GWB&co., we need to realize that many of these campaign statements will become so much realized hot air if the person gets elected. And if heartsurgeon just keeps up his forum trolling, we are likely to start a long running thread on GWB statements to balance the ledger.


Originally posted by: Lemon law
I think anyone who would even consider invading Pakistan is totally out of their mind

lol


 
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Watch for some quick edits on posts in those threads with today's date.

Expecting the dems here to steal a play from the republican playbook?

Yes, actually. I think Democrats are equally despicable.
 
Obama continues to impress with his apparent honesty and willingness to do the right thing, rather than the partisan thing.

I sincerely hope the SpecOps are all that is necessary to root out AQ and Taliban in NW Pakistan. I think they could do it very quickly and easily if the Pakistani military helps out more than they have thus far...

Good for Obama! Bad for Osama!
 
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I will admit that in this matter I am a partisan bigot. I find Obama to be bright and articulate and grounded is a solid morality. I see, thanks to overwhelmingly abundant proof in every direction, that George Bush is a freaking disaster. I have no doubt whatsoever that a Bush invasion of Pakistan would be a total disaster and an Obama move there would make good since and might work. I have become a totally convinced bigot that Bush is a catastrophe and I consider those not to have my bigotry to be quite insane.
Heh, I'm the same way. Bush could tell me that 2+2=4 and I have to be honest I would not believe it. I think his incompetence is thorough and permeates almost every fabric of his being and his statements and outlooks on the world.

Anyway, I'm all about some limited focused incurssions into Pakistan with the blessing of their government. If they say no, then you don't go unless it's clear that somebody like bin laden is literally on your satellite feed this very minute and you can proove it, in which case screw whatever they say.

Yep, I agree here too. You can't allow Territorial lines deter you in cases of national imminent threat. If terrorists are allowed by a country to fester there and carry out attacks against other nations, they have to expect they will be invaded. Naturally you would want to argue the validity of your case before the world and ask the country first for its assistance. But you can't allow things to tie your hands of you face a real and imminent threat.
 
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
That is interesting. Imagine, sending our anti-terrorism forces to where the terrorists are instead of where they are not. What a revolutionary idea!

:roll:
So there are no terrorist in Iraq? You apparently don't watch the news, or listen to the Dems who truthfully blame our invasion of Iraq for the current state of terrorism in Iraq.

Carry on then, listening to yourself and your delusions.
Go play. Your childish diversions are neither interesting nor original. All the grown-ups know what I'm referring to.
 
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Obama only has one thing going for him, he wasn't in office to vote to go to Iraq.

Yeah and thankfully revisionist history does not trump facts. No one voted to go to Iraq.

You just revised history in that statement. Got a problem facing the facts and truth about your heroes?

No one voted to go into Iraq.

There would be no war in Iraq if not for Democratic support of that war. You can deny it all you want, the record stands for recorded history.

As for the sudden appearance of Demo-Hawks, just read this thread. There are plenty of leaves blowing in the wind at their master's new whim.

It takes a man to admit when they are wrong, seems you aren't one. As stated 1000X and even though you won't admit it, no one voted to invade Iraq. That responsibility lies with Bush and the people feeding him.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
What's interesting about it? ...
I already answered this. It is quite interesting that we may finally get a leader who actually does something to reduce terrorism instead of actively working to inflame it.
I think what we are seeing here is the classic partisan hackery these debates have fallen into. If Bush proposed invading a nuclear state with troops you'd be all over him as a moron for invading a soviergn nation who has nuclear capability and it would rile up the islamists.

There was one such thread a couple of weeks ago about special forces teams ready to invade Pakistan territory but called off at the last moment. If I had the care, I would dig it up and see what your reaction to that was.
You believe that only because you are a die-hard partisan, incapable of separating perfectly valid criticisms of Bush's many failures and fsck-ups from criticism that is purely partisan. Most people here did NOT criticize Bush for going into Afghanistan. Indeed, many of us criticized him for dropping the ball in Afghanistan by diverting into Iraq. Many of us would support more action in Pakistan for the same reasons.

Pursuing terrorists where they are makes sense (at least when done in a rational and competent manner). Invading a nation where terrorists were not (i.e., had no material presence) was reckless, wrong, and counter-productive. You may not be able to distinguish between the two, but many of us are not so blinded by partisanship.


PS. Obama didn't say anything about invading Pakistan. That's a red herring. And feel free to knock yourself out digging up my reaction in that other thread. I'm confident that if I posted in it at all, my position will be consistent with what I've said here. I said some two or three years ago that we needed to be more aggressive with Pakistan, but was immediately attacked by the YABAs for being stupid to even suggest such a thing. I am human, of course, so if I contradicted myself, call me on it.
What an original reply of "I know you are but what am I". So when do we start playing the Im rubber you are glue game?

Anyways back on topic, putting troops into a soveirgn nation appears to be ok when a liberal proposes it, but bad when a republican does. Putting troops into a foreign country is an invasion even if it isnt an occupation.

And for the record I dont have a problem with us doing special ops invasions if the host country is unwilling to take action. What my problem is the sudden support for invading countries from the left when their man says it is time to go. It is even more amusing when said nation is a nuclear power.
Unsurprisingly, you didn't address what I said. You're also continuing to be willfully dishonest by claiming Obama suggested "invading" Pakistan. Your bogus definition was contrived to give you a club to attack him. It bears no resemblance to the accepted meaning of the word. Finally, I'll note you haven't attempted to back up your slur against me personally, insinuating my position is somehow partisan or hypocritical. Can we safely assume that's because you tried and found you are full of it?
 
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: jrenz
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
That is interesting. Imagine, sending our anti-terrorism forces to where the terrorists are instead of where they are not. What a revolutionary idea!

:roll:
If Bush proposed this exact thing tomorrow, this board would be up in arms calling him an irresponsible idiot.
You believe that only because you are a die-hard partisan....-snip-.

See this thread

And this thread

I won't bother quoting posters' remarks about how crazy the "neocons" were for developing plans to do what you are praising Obama for now proposing.

Fern
That's good, because I don't think you'll find such comments with perhaps one or two exceptions. Did you actually read the threads? I just read did, and they generally support my point, that jrenz and Genx87 are both mistaken when they insist responses here are due to "partisan hackery". The only person I saw who was adamantly opposed to the Bush "plan" was Lemon law. If one takes off one's partisan blinders, you may notice Lemon law's position is consistent in both threads: it's a bad idea. That was his position when the idea was associated with Bush; it is also his position in this thread. I saw other Bush-bashing comments, but they were not focused on possible actions in Pakistan, but rather on all the stuff BushCo has already screwed up.

If you saw something different, I suggest you find those quotes demonstrating partisan positions, re-read them carefully to be sure you're not inventing a phony position, and if not, post the quotes here to support your claims. Again, you may find one or two, but it's obviously not true that "this board [was] up in arms calling him an irresponsible idiot".
 
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
You believe that only because you are a die-hard partisan....-snip-.
See this thread

And this thread

I won't bother quoting posters' remarks about how crazy the "neocons" were for developing plans to do what you are praising Obama for now proposing.

Fern
Watch for some quick edits on posts in those threads with today's date.
Why? Who, specifically, has any reason to edit their earlier posts? Innuendo is easy, but I'll make the same suggestion to you that I made to Fern. Find those quotes from people taking inconsistent positions. If you can't find them, perhaps it's time to recognize that your own partisan assumptions are tainting your view of your "opponents" here.

Just a thought.
 
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Lemon law
To a certain extent Obama adds some new ideas to the ways to fight terrorists, but give heartsurgeon his due, I for one think Obama is doing some ill thought out shooting off of his mouth. Its one thing to pressure Pakistan for permission to operate troops on their soil and another thing to do so over their objections with Obama pushing very hard to get on the wrong side of the line.

But its very early yet and all candidates will make many "I am a uniter not a divider" type promises. And at least in the case of GWB&co., we need to realize that many of these campaign statements will become so much realized hot air if the person gets elected. And if heartsurgeon just keeps up his forum trolling, we are likely to start a long running thread on GWB statements to balance the ledger.


Originally posted by: Lemon law
I think anyone who would even consider invading Pakistan is totally out of their mind

lol
What's so funny?
 
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Lemon law
To a certain extent Obama adds some new ideas to the ways to fight terrorists, but give heartsurgeon his due, I for one think Obama is doing some ill thought out shooting off of his mouth. Its one thing to pressure Pakistan for permission to operate troops on their soil and another thing to do so over their objections with Obama pushing very hard to get on the wrong side of the line.

But its very early yet and all candidates will make many "I am a uniter not a divider" type promises. And at least in the case of GWB&co., we need to realize that many of these campaign statements will become so much realized hot air if the person gets elected. And if heartsurgeon just keeps up his forum trolling, we are likely to start a long running thread on GWB statements to balance the ledger.


Originally posted by: Lemon law
I think anyone who would even consider invading Pakistan is totally out of their mind

lol
What's so funny?
The fact that Lemon Law indirectly stated that he thinks Obama is out of his mind. His choice of words in each of the threads is also humorous. It makes one chuckle a bit given Lemon's political leanings...

That said, after reading more of Obama's speech on this issue, I am one step closer to voting for the guy. My favorite Obama quote is this one: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

His plan to meet with leaders face-to-face, including Cuba's Castro, was also encouraging. I believe it's time we bring Cuba, regardless of their government of choice, back into good standing. The cold war ended 17 years ago, so it's time to put aside old policies and sanctions against Castro. I know this will upset the Cuban Florida Lobby, but I don't care. Shedding the anti-Cuba policies will go a long way in showing the world that we're ready to shift directions. It will also regain some respect that we'll need to impose REAL sanctions on countries down the road who REALLY deserve it...

We may have finally found a candidate who is "less scummy" than any of the others... Here's to hoping he stays that way and follows through with his courageous ideas! :beer:
 
Back
Top