What I need to hear from Obama.

[Vattel]

I see no reason to send American soldiers to their deaths for the sake of possibly, maybe, who knows, preventing another terrorist attack against America. But if Obama could convince me that more troops would probably prevent extremist elements in Pakistan and Afghanistan from making subtantial gains in power, and that this objective could be achieved in a reasonably short time frame, then I would be willing to take seriously the possibility that the escalation is the right thing to do.

[mike_c]

1. that would be preemptive war and a crime against humanity....

But the war against Afghanistan is already a crime against humanity, so why not?

[TwilightGardener]

2. We're 8 years too late to be "pre-emptive", don'tcha think.

[mike_c]

3. not if the new justification is to prevent future possible events in Pakistan....

The rationale for the war then becomes preemptive.

[TwilightGardener]

4. Not pre-emptive if we're still going after extremists--nothing's changed

except where they're hiding. In Pakistan.

[mike_c]

5. unless they attack the U.S., we have no right to "go after them" except...

...the right to preempt future attacks, as per the Bush doctrine.

[TwilightGardener]

6. But they did. Did you miss that news story? It was real big.

[Vattel]

7. not pre-emptive

because the Taliban is already waging war and thereby seeking to increase their power in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. Actually that is counter insurgency operations

not preemptive war.

Just the definitions that are important here. Why? We are not going in to prevent this, (preemptive) we are already there.

And by the way, the casus belli is 9.11 and was deemed legal by the US House, US Senate, NATO and UN...

Whether I agree with this or not, there is an actual valid casus belli.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. He actually tried to articulate that today

when he referred to the paki mess.

It was just so badly articulated.