damkira said:
McCain on preemptive war: "I don't think you could make a blanket statement about pre-emptive war, because obviously, it depends on the threat that the United States of America faces," the senator from Arizona told his audience. Obama's stance on preemptive war is a bit more murky: "I would also argue that we have the right to take unilateral military action to eliminate an imminent threat to our security -- so long as an imminent threat is understood to be a nation, group, or individual that is actively preparing to strike U.S. targets (or allies with which the United States has mutual defense agreements), and has or will have the means to do so in the immediate future. Al Qaeda qualifies under this standard, and we can and should carry out strikes against them wherever we can. Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not meet this standard, which is why our invasion was such a strategic blunder." (Emphasis in text.) |
So it's the same stance?
The only difference really is Iraq. Where McCain wants to slowley withdraw troops after things are a little more stable. (and things are on the right paht.)
and Obama wants to pull out troops right away because "Iraq isn't trying because we are there". Yet has reserved the right to put them back when things get worse.
So he's basically going to pull out, things are going to get worse then put the troops back in. What's the point?
You don't think unilaterally going into countries without permission could start wars? Including really unstable countries like Pakistan, where out entrances would make the very tenious hold of their president even more tenious.
