Palin Contradicts McCain On Pakistan, Seems To Back Obama?s Position

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: SigArms08a

Originally posted by: Craig234
If a guy bombed a civilian airliner as a terrorist act and then fled to the US, would the nation whose airliner was bombed have the right to cross the border to get him?

Doubtful that the US would look the other way, much less protect such a person. IMHO, our authorities would actually enjoy hunting such scum down!

Sarcasm?

Google "Luis Posada Carriles" or "Orlando Bosch" and discover exactly how serious our government is about running down terrorists.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Like it matter what that Soccer Mommy thinks.

Hockey Mom. Get it straight. Soccer moms don't wear lipstick.

Non Sequitur. Soccer moms do wear lipstick.

Hockey moms are unlike Soccer moms in that they are not pit bulls (vicious bloodthirsty bitches) in lipstick.

 

[palehorse]

I have always considered McCain's stance on this specific issue as "odd." It's almost as though he and Barrack each feel opposite of what would expected... That said, I'm with Obama (and Palin?) on this one. If Pakistan continues to fail to stop the attacks inside and outside of their "borders," then we need to address the problem ourselves and be done with it.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: palehorse
I have always considered McCain's stance on this specific issue as "odd." It's almost as though he and Barrack each feel opposite of what would expected... That said, I'm with Obama (and Palin?) on this one. If Pakistan continues to fail to stop the attacks inside and outside of their "borders," then we need to address the problem ourselves and be done with it.

Agreed. McCain's stance is odd to me.

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: palehorse
I have always considered McCain's stance on this specific issue as "odd." It's almost as though he and Barrack each feel opposite of what would expected... That said, I'm with Obama (and Palin?) on this one. If Pakistan continues to fail to stop the attacks inside and outside of their "borders," then we need to address the problem ourselves and be done with it.

Agreed. McCain's stance is odd to me.

McCain is posturing. He's not saying we shouldn't cross the border, he's saying keep it a secret. His guide is Richard Nixon and the secret war in Cambodia.

The fact is this is a region not subject to any central power. The authorities in the Pakistani government will wring their hands but be (secretly) pleased if we eliminated the plague of bin Laden from their country. The only real problem is the ineffective or failed attempts ratchet up the pressure on both governments.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: Craig234
If a guy bombed a civilian airliner as a terrorist act and then fled to the US, would the nation whose airliner was bombed have the right to cross the border to get him?

If a terrorist organisation (let's call it 'Al Qaida') flew several airlines full of passengers into US buildings (let's call this '9/11'), and the country where they were hiding (for example 'Afghanistan') was ruled by a group of people (e.g. the 'Taliban') who refused to act against them, would the US have the right to invade the country and place a puppet government there?

The previous Pakistani government (or dictator, as he refused to step down a few times) was a friend of Bush, which is why nothing was done about him refusing to act against Al Qaida. The whole world knew Al Qaida and the Taliban were (and still are) for a large part based in Pakistan (except for the occasional Bush-believer, who claimed they were in Iraq), but the US would only fight them in Afghanistan.

 

[dbk]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...news/main4487826.shtml

Damn these gotcha type questions.