See, whenever I start worrying about Obama's lack of foreign policy experience, I just put him next to Dubya and suddenly I feel a lot better about it. I cannot see how he could possibly screw things up any more than they are now.

My cat could do better.

Yeah - Obama just wants to invade a country with an unstable government that's trying to help in the war on terror and they already have nukes. Makes sense.

He also said he wouldn't ever use nukes. That's a great way to have a nuclear deterence against states that might sponsor terrorists by giving them a nuke.

Makes great sense. I'm sure if Bush said those things you'd be right with him (well, maybe on the nukes, but not on the invasion of Pakistan).

Oh dear, yes, we wouldn't want to jeopardize our relationship with a country that's preventing us from going after the enemy that actually attacked us. Much more important to invade countries that have nothing to do with the only tangible threat we've faced in the last 40 years or so.

Ditto what he said. Oh, and I'm for invading the area-undeservedly-known-as-Pakistan right now.

I find it amusing that one argument against the invasion of Iraq was that the power vacuum would create a breeding ground for terrorists and most likely an Islam state with Islamic law.

What do you suppose just might happen there if the US invaded? Much more likely there than in Iraq, IMO.

If we're going to go after terrorists where they are, I suppose we should invade Saudi Arabia and Iran and Syria. Isn't that what he's saying? Go where they are? At least Pakistan is attempting to work with us, unlike the other countries I've listed, two of which clearly sponsor terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere.

Let me know when you're in support of the invasion of those two countries as well.

Doesn't Bush want to arm the Saudis?

Just to add a bit...at one point in time they Pakistan had around 90 thousand troops in those mountains fighting terrorists village to village.

What they came under criticism for is adopting a different strategy of reducing troop levels and trying to work with the villagers. Umm....isn't that what some want us to do in Iraq? Reduce troop levels immensely and go with a more diplomatic strategy?

Personally, I don't think this strategy is good. But they are sovereign and are working against terrorism. So if I don't like the way their doing it, I should invade them????

Did Obama say he would overthrown the Pakistani government? Nope.

I appreciate your zeal, but your argument is a bit much, don't ya think?

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Musharraf has to refuse to help us first, right? He hasn't done that.

I don't appreciate Obama's words either. I think it was a foolish statement.

But I'd come closer to agreeing to attack a country actually harboring our enemy than one who wasn't.