I think we need some clarification. Entering Pakistan to clear out some rebels is NOT an invasion. He DIDN'T say," If there are people from Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Musharraf can't or refuses to act, then we will go in, remove the rebels, and topple Pakistan's government". That's something completely different. I think what he said is personally reasonable. It makes sense. If you can't act to take out our enemy, we will.

James, Baltimore, USA

What an amateur!

Obama has spent most of his campaign lamblasting the current administration for jumping into a war and he is already declaring a new one during the first year of office. What a hypocrite!

No vote from me, this term or next.

The more he talks, the less polished and exciting his speeches become. Apparently, he has exausted his fuel supply.

bob, wadesboro,

He lost my support. Not even in office and already talking about war!!!! OUR COUNTRY IS ENTERING A RECESSION.> THAT SHOULD BE YOUR ONLY FOCUS FOR THE SHORT TERM.

Mike Johnson, Columbus,

yeah sure why don't you try sending ground troops to Pakistan and than we shall see . . . :P

SM, Lahore , Pakistan

Not a very bright thing to have said. The fact remains, however, that Pakistan must act quickly now to do all that it can, to eliminate all islamist vermin from the NW Frontier Province at once. Its survival, and the continued civilising of the wider region, all rest squarely on this prospect.

Indra, Mumbai, In

It is interesting tha Obama who said he was against the Iraq War and the Iraq occupation from the beginning now is endorsing the invasion of Terroists fronts in Pakistan .... The fact is , Ben Laden and his top aides need to be found and given a tourist trip to the vicinity of the sun ..... Where he and his cohorts if they survive the heat and have enough consumables can gaze on the sun to their hearts content ...

Dennis L. Pearson, Allentown , USA/PA

Excellent ...At last an aspiring politician with the guts to tell what the rest of the world knows ..If Bush had acted with such gumption when Bin Laden was holed in Tora Bora then perhaps we would have been spared some of the carnage that we now see .At the very least Obama has opened up the can of worms that everyone runs clear of ie Pakistan runs with the hares and hunts with the hounds .

Hetal Patel, Hatch End, UK

I read all the comments and it is indeed great pleasure to know that people, not leaders, in the west are peace loving and will reject any extremist.
Pakistan is a moderate and fast developing country of 160 million people. It has an independent Judiciary and press. Despite its democracy has been derailed many times, still there is a working democracy and democratic institutions. It has big countries like China, India and Russia on its borders. Pakistanis love and respect life but know well, to sacrifice it for their motherland.
Mr. Obama with a Muslim family background, tries to be loyal to the king more than the king himself. This is natural in his case.
But Mr. Obama, REMEMBER, Pakistan is not any middle east country. It is PAKISTAN, which, since its independence, has spent on nothing else than its armed forces. One of world's best Army, Airforce and a capable Navy. With Nukes, nukes capable missiles, cruise missiles. Its not Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Latin America, Afghanistan

Mujeeb Khan, Leeds, United Kingdom

Mr Obama has lost his marbles. The only reason that US is still in afghanistan and iraq is because of musharaf's support. Musharaf is a military dictator and lost his influence in pakistan. It is estimated that US forces will only manage to stay a maximum of 2 weeks without the support of pakistan. This has been accepted by many political analysts and war strategists.

The war cannot be won by military means, look what happened to USSR in afghanistan. Our brave British army boys are dying on daily basis now, they are sacrificing their lives for what? Now we all feel unsecure even in Britain. I dont know where the next terrorist attack will come from.

I would support George Galloway views in this, I hope that our Tory leadership will see the light and think and talk peace and negotiations at all fronts. Graham Brady is now becoming my hero. Let's think how we can win the next general election.
Talking War is a sure way to lose landslide.

Vote_Boris, london,

Foolish, arrogant, opportunistic. All who've had their fill of these qualities in an American Chief Executive, please raise your hands! I'm not a single-issue voter; but I am a proud peace voter, and was until recently a vigorous supporter of Obama.

Most of Obama's appeal lay in his independent thought and action, best exemplified by his voting against the Iraq war authorization. He is also known for his measured responses and articulate remarks--characteristics that set him apart from many of his colleagues. Now, in his desperation to prove himself as tough on terror as Clinton (who thoroughly ingratiated herself to the Washington war establishment long ago), Obama has now shown himself to be every bit as craven as his peers. I suppose we should be glad for this revelation relatively early in the race.

W.K. Ferro, Chesapeake Beach, USA/Maryland

Barrack Obama
He will meet with leaders of countries that we have the worst problems with immediately. Not talking to regimes you have the worst relationship with isn't punishment. It's just asinine
If there is actionable intelligence of the location of terrorists in Pakistan & Musharraf won't act on it, he will.
A specific strike on a specific target after giving the country itself the opportunity to eliminate that threat seems very reasonable to me. Far more reasonable than an all out war.
He also made it clear last week that no matter what nuclear negotiation or situation we may be in with Russia or China or any other nuclear power, he will NOT use nukes as a threat or tool for negotiation to fight terrorism.
He's made it clear that if negotiations fail. And if there's specific intelligence informing us of the specific location of terrorists & the country they're in won't act, he will- without declaring war, shutting off communication or even threatening the use nuclear weapons.

Ed, Eugene, Oregon

No matter how appealing Obama may be to a number of people, his speech on this subject revealed something that should be crystal clear to the American people: there is only one party in this country, and that's the War Party.

Those alleged differences between Democratic and Republican "visions" for this country's future are simply sound and fury, signifying nothing.

All candidates are simply acquisitions of the companies which own them through campaign (and other covert) contributions. Unfortunately, the major winners in any so-called war on terror are the defense contractors.

Stanzler, NY, USA

what a stupid thing to say? Obama obviously wants to look tough but the Pakistani public perception of the US, is not going to improve like that! It reminds me of General Mcarthur's idiotic trespass over the border into China, from the Korean peninsula.

Bin Laden is probably rubbing his hands in joy.

Akram, London,

Who would protect rest of the world from USA???

Helena Mathys, Hameenlinna, Finland

Obama is an empty suit, with nothing to recommend him other than the fact that he is photogenic. Keep talking Barack!

Bruce, Kentucky, USA

GunRunz,

The Saudis seem to have got away with 9/11 though haven't they?

roll on Cuba and Iran.

Akram, London,

I am surprised by the naivete by the european commenters here, though by now I shouldn't be, and by the hypocrisy and outright lies told by the muslim commenters. The war in Iraq is a fiasco thanks to incompetent planning, war profiteers like Haliburton and, most of all, tribal muslims who have absolutely no interest in justice or democracy. However this does not take away the fact that terrorists are being protected by segments of the Pakistani govt and secret service organizations in Pakistan. The very same terrorists who killed 3000 innocents. The US would not need to overthrow or occupy Pakistan as we had to in Iraq. Should terrorists be allowed to flourish?
Steve from Glasgow - we are not worried about alienating the muslim world. They have alienated us with their xenophobia, i.e. jihad against British writers and danish cartoonists. The list is miles long.
Tariq from London - The US armed the Taleban to throw off their oppressors. So who is SELFISH and UNGRATEFUL?

Phil, NY, NY

"What in [Obama's] statement implies or expressly states that he would send in troops or invade Pakistan?" - Dawn, Arlington, VA

Dawn, Obama expressly states that if Musharraf will not act against terrorists holed up in the Pakistani mountains then he (America) would.

How do you propose that America would act against those terrorists without taking military action on the territory of Pakistan? Any unsanctionned troops or American agents whatsoever on Pakistani soil is in itself an act of war against Pakistan. In such a volatile region with considerable anti-American sentiment this would at the very least alienate a very important ally to America and the West and could at worst start a war with a nuclear power.

Obama's words are extremely foolhardy and naive. there is a lot more at stake her than attempting to score points with the American voters.

Will, London, UK

If pakistan is attacked by USA i can assure you that instead of million odd hard liners the US troops will be facing 160 million people comprising the entire Pakistani nation. Lets not forget that these taliban were funded,trained and armed by USA. Its paying the cost for abandoning them. Abandon Pakistan now at your own peril. Any incursions into pakistan will redraw the world map and the conflict will,very likely, be nuclear. One is living with disgust with these suicide bombers who are simply ruining our life. Its really naive to think these very fanatics are afraid of death by a US strike. If the US wants to convert 160 million people into suicide bombers its good time to strike. We will soon see a suicide nuclear bomb strike.The right approach is to assist Pakistan,ensure help is reaching the areas where we win their hearts and minds. We had enough blood and terror.Its time to promote peace.

Shehzad, london, UK

This just shows that simply voting for a democrat won't stop wars initiated bu US. Obama is just another puppet. So were Bush and Clinton. The same can be said for Hilary. People have to realize that it is not about Democrats Vs Republicans anymore. It's about neocons vs the world. People in US have to vote for a candidate that is not affiliated with any of the infamous "secret sociaties". American citizens have to clean that mess they created in their country and in the world. Because if they can't do it, eventually, other countries will do it for them.

Slava, North York, Canada

Mr. Obama are you telling us that the 900+ soldiers Pakistan has lost over the last couple of years fighting for your country's safety don't count anywhere? Any yeah, another thing - Pakistan helped the US resurrect one of it's worst enemies (the current regime) in Afghanistan - again for no reason? Thanks to concerns for your safety, Pakistan has hostile governments on both the eastern and western borders.

Well, just so you know when you attack one sovereign nation after another, you will not be greeted with flowers. The entire 160 million strong Pakistani population and 500,000 army would stand up and fight the invaders. If you want another world war, you will get another world war. That is all, Mr. Obama. And get a mental check-up, there seems to be a problem with your internal circuitry.

A A Haq, Stanford, CA

Comments from people like Mary, Los Angeles, below show how we shouldn't be surprised by this latest political statement from America. Obviously not all Americans hold those views, but it is in the American psyche to be the biggest, best, strongest, etc. They cannot help it. Being macho is a part of who they are and you cannot really blame them for that especially when you see the news media they are bombarded with day in day out. Only as the balance of power swings away from them (as it will, probably to China) will we see the end of these delusions of grandeur. The latest plan to give billions of dollars worth of weapons to the Middle East worries me more than sound bite statements from a would be/never will be President.

Julian, Shrewsbury, UK

George W (as in WMD) light? Or should that be dark?

Jakkals Segal, Burlington, Vermonet, USA

Two weeks ago, Obama was for precondtions.

Last week, he was for kumbaya-ing with Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela with no precondtions.

This week, he's for unilaterally invading an unstable Middle East nuclearized ally preemptively?

All this from a guy who claims to be the most-experienced in foreign affairs of the entire Presidential field, Democratic and Republican?

God save us all!

JoeCHI, Chicago, IL/USA

Well, we can scratch this "young bull" as a candidate. 1). Most registered democrats never wanted us in Iraq. 2). Most registered democrats want America out of Iraq. 3). Read number 1. 4) Uh, did it ever occur to Mr. Obama that Pakistan has nuclear weapons and that.....5). India will come to their rescue regardless of their contempt for each other?

Thanks Obama, you've been a real entertaining politician. The the center stage is not ready for a side-show.

Joe, Del Mar, CA

Obama has lost the race with one comment. Period.

Shah, ii, India

I can't believe those words came from his mouth... what he says does not show light to the fact that he has thought how nations in not only the middle-east but the whole world, will react to a belligerent maneuver. Lets pray that if he does become commander and chief that he will choose not only his actions carefully but his words. A reminiscent to any landmark president would be a little more careful with words.

Mark, Michigan, USA

Goodbye Barack. The last thing the U.S. needs is another little Bush.

Matt, Wuerzburg, Germany

The position may win Obama some votes. He needs to distinguish himself from Clinton, and he'll get a lot of media coverage for this one. The guy isn't dumb.

Mike, Knoxville, TN

It appears that this country is full of militants who are plotting to attack the Western World. The longer the U.S.A. shouts and screams while it waits for them to sort out the problem the more cells spring up and the greater the problem becomes. The only question is whether they will attack the U.K. or Pakistan first.

Byrne Harris, London, U.K.

US polititians make me laugh. On the one hand he's willing to invade yet another sovereign nation and on the other, he concedes that the Iraqi invasion had made the US less safer. Has he gone nuts or that's just normal behaviour from a US presidential candidate?

Shane Hashmi, Vancouver, Canada

The US government has only one foreign policy. It seems to be to free people and give them democracy by killing them.
Since 1950 countless millions around the world have been killed by USA forces defending freedom and democracy. Perhaps someone should explain that democracy also means letting people in other countries chose what their government should be and what religion they want to follow. It is not about creating carbon copies of the USA against peoples wishes.

Trevor Payne, Thetford, UK

Intentions behind the Invading other countries is not to safe USA from terrorist attacks. If this is not true then how many grandfathers and forefathers of Osama were hiding in Nicaragaua, Veitnam, Laos, Panama, Haiti, EL Salvador, Angola, Bolivia, Labanon, Koria and others. The dummy dictator Mushi is already there then i think no need for this labor.

Akhtar, Lahore, Punjab/ Pakistan

Yes GunRunz, let America invade and bomb more eastern countries, that way when they all turn on you watch the empire fall. And there will be no friend in sight.

K, Glasgow, Scotland

“I’ve long believed that we needed tougher, smarter action against terrorists by deploying more troops to Afghanistan, and if we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured,” Clinton said in an interview with American Urban Radio News Network. “And that will be my highest priority because they pose the highest threat to America.”

Clinton said she would first pursue diplomacy, but using her husband, former President Bill Clinton, as an example, took the same hawkish tack Obama had employed earlier in the day.

“But clearly we have to be prepared — as my husband was when he fired on training camps and as we must be with special operations, with using technology like the Predator [unmanned aerial vehicle] — to be constantly on the hunt for bin Laden and the other al Qaeda leadership,” Clinton said.

Dawn, Arlington, VA

Team America - World Police, where Yeehaw! is a form of foriegn policy. Obama is simply a naive, ignorant man trying to talk tough to naive, ingnorant, fearful Americans in the hope of populist support. Unfortunately his (and Clintons) remarks are broadcast around the world showing us exactly the level of thinking involved in the US today.

I wonder whether Obama will be using the same intelligence services that showed Saddam had WMD and links to Al-Qaida when he proposes bombing nationals in a soveriegn nation.

Russ, Reading, UK

Mr. Obama has declared his intentions of invading Pakistan but only if General Musharraf is not acting on any intelligence provided by US. They have been acting on intelligence reports of their own and of US resulting in capture of many AQ operatives and leaders. But threatening someone this way was not something expected from someone who is aspiring to be commander in chief of US one day. Its even dangerous for US that its assets are in hands of someone who is not using his head, not thinking about selection of words he is using, not using diplomatic ways while making decisions. There could have been many other ways to deliver this message. That country is already in turmoil fighting for west against AQ and has lost more police and army men then anyone else. Such comments will only contribute in creating bad sentiments.

Mehmud, Blekinge,

I wouldn't mind an African American president, but this guy seems... a bit too emotional, and I don't think he really understands whats going on.

JS, Austin, USA

Trying hard to look tough. Statements like these make democracy a joke.

John, London, UK

As an Obama supporter up to now, these comments about attacking al Qaeda with or without Pakistan's approval truly shows colours of an international amateur more interested in votes than the applying truth and wisdom in difficult situations. This would create a precendent that allows a country to violate anothers borders with military force. Could you imagine such a precedent? Israel may then definitely decide to do the same against Iran - leading to wide-spread war in the region. It begs the question of what another Bush-like warmonger is capable of when sitting at the helm of the world's most powerful country. Clinton - you would have my vote (if I was an American) - I think it is time for a voice or wisdom, sound judgement, and diplomacy in America, to undo the carnage and mess Bush will leave behind.

To truly receive assistance in the middle east, rather than send a distorted message of peace by sending billions in weapons, the US should focus on economic aid packages.

Sam , Toronto , Canada

At last somebody has realized the real axis of evil. It's the center of all faults. Osama hiding there, Taliban hiding in there, Al Zawahiri, yes he is there too. You have caught more famous men from this territory then anywhere else in the whole world. If American's are providing intelligence to Pakistani's, why are they procrastinating in apprehending these big figures? I must say Mr. Obama is a brave man who has courage to say what he wishes to do. Bombing Pakistan is a good idea but don't send your soldiers in. They have killed more then 1000 of their own and they will make BBQ of your's without any hesitation. Better fire missiles on targets or use UAVs. You have the intelligence and its highly likely that you will target the correct points. American's lives are very precious.

Shiraz, Karlskrona,

are there not any other means to tackle terrorrism in this part of the world? other type of pressure the US could do on the Pakistani government? because really, I doubt that ''invading'' it, is the solution. It would once again alienate the US from a lot of countries and pakistani people won't sit there and look at American troops go easily.
I know the US had, several times, been under some 'coup d'etat' ( or whatever) so as to settle a pro American head of state. Won't it be better in this case, to try to place a Pakistani government which is really willing to fight Al Qaeda, helped with the US, better than make a second sort of 'war of Irak'?
I dont know you...you should learn a little more from you history, people of the US. But I concede that this is so hard a war, after all, the end justifies the means....

louise, soissons,

I think one of the simpler solutions to this problem might just be to give Pakistan more financial and military aid for its anti-terrorist services. Unlike the US, Pakistan isn't really capable of handling multi-billion dollar military campaigns.

The money the US has spent so far on the Iraq war is probably 10 years worth of Pakistan's budget :)

With resources and greater support from US intelligence, the Pakistani military may be more effective against the Terrorists (although I'm not really sure you can get them all if they choose to hide seriously)

JS, Austin, USA

Originally born into a Muslim family, if mr Barack Hussein Obama as president of US did however attacked Pakistan, the Muslim world would not consider it as Christian crusade type of attack. So, it actually could be a good politically correct move. However, it is an unlikely scenario, as Pakistan would not hesitate to use their nucler weapons, unlike Saddam who could not use his, obviously because he didn't have any.

Mohammed, London, UK

"I am a committed against the Islamists and Jihadists that seek to attack the USA, and a large percentage of them are from Pakistan and the UK. "

Mark, DC, USA

I look forward to hearing support for the US invading the UK.

on Mr. O's comments - I don't see why they could not be construed as a willingness to either drop in special forces, of which I'm sure there are enough there already, or for a missile strike rather than a full-scale invasion, which surely he can't mean - is the US army not overstretched enough as it is, or will they hire more Blackstone mercenaries to do it for them ?

either of those 2 options, without the express and prior agreement of Pakistan are dangerous enough without resorting to 10's if not 100's of thousands more troops stirring up more hatred

Jon Elliott, London, UK

off-topic, but:
"It will happen just as we saved you from the Nazis and communism. Now give us a break and let us do our job."

that would be almost funny if it wasn't so wrong and presumably believed by a large amount of americans.
god-bless hollywood re-writing the history books.

learn some ACTUAL history, of europe and of the middle-east and how the countries involved actually came into being in their modern day form, the internal pressures they have faced, the fall of the shah (and lets face it, the installation of that american puppet, against the will of the people, by the US and the revolution it caused brought radical islam into power and popularity in the first place) then, when you know what you are talking about, talk about it.

Jon Elliott, London, UK

Taking action against insurgents residing in a country with nuclear weapons is a new paradigm .Also consider the fact that a time magazine and PBS report had indicted Pakistan in the export of nuclear technology. America has already made serious mistakes such as supporting dictators in iraq then taking the military action to sort out the mess but this is different (they have the ability to hit back) America should have finished the work in afghanistan and then helped stabilise democratic reforms in Pakistan .(instead they decided to invade iraq instead) .The current "Bush" government has just asked congress to approve a billion dollar arms package to " non democratic" governments " (petrol on fire) .Mr Obama needs to look at the larger picture, by 2008 things will be a lot worse and then he will look weak because the current administrations commitments would be extremely difficult to reverse before he carry out his promises . Leaving iraq , Taking action in Pakistan etc.

stephen, london, uk

To: Maggie in Brittany and the rest
"This type of comment really makes one wonder if American politicians/ candidates have any diplomatic & negotiating skills. " It makes you wonder, how do you think educated American's feel? (yes there are a few of us). In answer, not only do they lack diplomatic & negotiating skills, they lack quality education. I would hope that the rest of you would understand that we Americans have no real control over who gets elected because we have no control over who can run. Wealthy elites,Multinational corporations and the "Mainstream Media" determine Candidates and Winners of elections.

Tony, Houston, TX

Democrat, Republican, It's all a game to take control of the people in our country. Two sides of the same coin, all working for big business, and war is big business.

What's the answer? Presidential candidate, Doctor, and Congressman Ron Paul. He has gained insane internet popularity and independent polls show him in favor of all candidates.

Liberal or Conservative, take a look at Ron Paul with an open mind, I think you'll change your mind

Ron Paul for prez in 08!

Paul, Riverside, CA, U.S.A

Americans voting in a black president would be like Saddam voting Bush for Iraq president. Absolutely zero chance.

Stanzler, NY, USA

Peacelove in Bristol, have you ever heard of Neville Chamberlain? He famously negotiated "peace in our time". That worked out really well didn't it? Perhaps he was too "naive" to realize that some people won't negotiate in good faith. Hmmmm

C Heathcote, Tonbridge,

Yes, Obama will send US troops to Pakistan and Pakistan will sit by and clap for them right? This is the height of American ignorance. These people are forgetting that Pakistan is not Afghanistan or Iran, it is a nuclear power and has a strong conventional army. What if they intercept these Americans and kill some of them? Where will US War on Terrorism be after that? In this so called War of Terrorism, US has already made enough enemies, the last thing it should do is lose friends or atleast neutrals and not turn them against it.

Kevin Green, Pickering, ON, Canada

Oh please people!! Nothing in his statement implies he would invade Pakistan. If Musharraf refuses to deal with the terror cells and the re-grouping Taliban within the Mnts on the border, than why not cross it?

Missy, avon, mn

And this is the voice of the more moderate of the two parties in America! One Obama chasing another, running roughshod, and uninvited, over an ally's country. As a white, conservative British citizen I am appalled but no longer surprised at this turn of events and the worrying thing is that it is an election ploy, suggesting that he's confident that the American electorate want to hear this.

Mike, Brighton, England

Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate with an astute and intelligent foreign policy. The rest of these guys are a joke.

Edward, NYC,

It's about time somebody spoke out against all the politics surrounding 9-11 and focused on the only reason the USA, or any other nation, put troops into combat: Get the Thugs who Attacked the Towers.

Obama is the only politician willing to speak the truth.

Brian, Benton Harbor,

I love death more than you love life...Pakistan ,a country of 160 million muslims,a nuclear power,fought U S war against the soviets,ruled by an autocratic doormat.....please do us this favour by bombing us into stoneage.anyway half of the population lives without a meal a day,releave them of their misery...daisy cutters?tactical nuclear weapons?anything will do..but then will come people who will have nothing to loose,no comforts,no looking to uncle sam.we might even get a leader of substance,a man of faith,a man of honour and dignity .INSHAALLAH a nation will arise out of the ruins .Mr Obama you are challenging wrong kind of people.

S Ahmed, peshawar, pakistan

I agree with Barack Obama. It would be very interesting to see an Obama vs Osama duel. He will be serving in the front line...won't he??

Stanzler, NY, USA

Just lost the Democrat vote, congrats Obomber!!!!

Ben J, Manly, NSW Aus

Wow, I see that the brits don't mind reporting half and whole truths in their efforts to discredit Senator Obama too. Woud those condemning Senator Obama's statements as a sign of his inexperience be interested to know that Senator Clinton (and her husband, the former President) agree with Senator Obama. Below is the text of an interview that Senator Clinton gave TODAY, AFTER Senator Obama's speech. And please take note that she has not only pledged to hunt down Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, but it will be her "HIGHEST PRIORITY." And you Brits might also be interested to know that the guy who crafted Senator Obama's speech is the former counter-terrorism czar for both Clinton and Bush administrations and the same guy who wrote that pesky little memo warning of an immiment attack on US soil PRE 9/11. Call me naive and irresponsible too, but I'm guessing he might know a little something more about the subject than the same folks who followed Bush into Iraq.

Dawn, Arlington, VA

See this merry go round- America's most wanted terrorists are given sanctuary in the PAK/Afghan border areas- under a special cease fire agreement with Mushraf- An ally of US. Afghan is under Nato control- But Bush is fighting a civil war in Iraq- He doesn't even know who is the enemy-Shias, Sunnies or AQ - Give over the control to Iraq people or other UN bodies or Organization of Islamic countries to address and stop the civil war. Focus on flushing out AQ from PAK/Afghan by cordoning of the Area under UN mandate- do not do it under American flag. I am not American but just a human being- If I can save one human life I am most gratified.
I think Obama has got the correct objectives- probably methodology is a bit unconventional. Bush and the current Administration should know when you cannot solve the problem for a long time you will become part of the problem.

Murali, singapore, Singapore

Mr. Obama will have his foot in his mouth just like every other chatter box politician. The problem is that the politicians seeking nomination by their party, are olny concerned with the latest polls. There olny talking points seem to be either what the polls tell them, talking foul about the other canidates "even there own party members" and when all else fails, outlandish ideas/proposals haphazardly proclaimed. All this just to see if they can one up eachother in the polls. This says alot about those seeking office. No pride, values, or beliefs can be found. They are all followers. When will there be a leader.

Tom, Glendale, Arizona

“I’ve long believed that we needed tougher, smarter action against terrorists by deploying more troops to Afghanistan, and if we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured,” Clinton said in an interview with American Urban Radio News Network. “And that will be my highest priority because they pose the highest threat to America.”

Clinton said she would first pursue diplomacy, but using her husband, former President Bill Clinton, as an example, took the same hawkish tack Obama had employed earlier in the day.

“But clearly we have to be prepared — as my husband was when he fired on training camps and as we must be with special operations, with using technology like the Predator [unmanned aerial vehicle] — to be constantly on the hunt for bin Laden and the other al Qaeda leadership,” Clinton said.

Dawn, Arlington, VA

To launch an attack within the sovereign borders of any country is nothing short of declaring war.
First America turned Iraq into a terrorist breading ground and if Mr Obama gets his way the same will happen in Pakistan. Lets not forget that Pakistan has over 160 million population, NUCLEAR weapons, state of the art military supplied by. . . .. umm. . .. .ohh America!!
Just imagine for a second that the military falls against the might of the US, all those nice shinny new weapons that USA has supplied in the last 6 years will be turned against them.
Nato and America have had a hard time dealing with unguided RPG’s what will they do against the latest radar and heat seeking missiles?

John, Edinburgh,

A military strike is very different than an invasion. Canadians who complain about our candidates' IQs should think about comparing Obama to ANY Canadian politician of the last 50 years and you don't have one that comes close. And that definitely includes that self-serving egomaniac with the bi-polar wife, Trudeau.

Goobie, Pittsburgh, PA

Senator Obama, you've lost my vote.

SK, Chicago, IL,

It may be Saudis, Egyptians who bombed the towers but it is these same group now hiding in Pakistan. They should been hit long time ago be it in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Taking them alive to be transported to Cuba was also a biggext mistake.

Edith Smith, London,

Obama is the only candidate to have the balls to call a spade a spade or in this case Pakistan a terrorist state.

Real American, Seattle, USA

Canada -
Obama's speech is probably the most intelligent thing that anyone has said on terrorism yet. And I am anything but a fan of Obama's. However, I am a committed against the Islamists and Jihadists that seek to attack the USA, and a large percentage of them are from Pakistan and the UK.

About time someone in the USA spoke up on this.

Good for you Obama!

Mark, DC, USA

This type of comment really makes one wonder if American politicians/ candidates have any diplomatic & negotiating skills.

They have fallen into the trap of tough talking which is designed to frighten , but only inflames the situation.

Maggie Millington, Brittany, France

You try invading Pakistan and you will face the consequences, its easy to say some things then doing them. Pakistan is a nuclear state and if faced with any such threat we will hit back with our full might let this be very clear to all. We are a moderate state and we are trying to combat terrorism in the best way we can, we have already spent loads of money for buying arms and equipment to fight terrorism and we have also faced the consequences such as suicide bombings in our capital city (the red mosque issue also being one of them). Now when you say these kind of things you convert even moderate people against you. Be careful of the words you choose next time m8!!! and stop living in a dream world.

Ahsan, Manchester, UK

To Mary, Los Angeles, CA:

The Americans didn't save us from the Nazis, the Communists did!! Do you actually know what happened in Europe during World War 2?

James Roberts, Manchester, UK

This is such nonsense. This position he staked out is weaker than that of the current administration. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said this very morning that if the US has perfect information they will not hesitate to strike within Pakistan. And he said nothing about finding out if Musharraf would do it first.

This message provides the perfect headlines that Obama needs in order to pacify the nativists in his own party. It's really quite brilliant in fact. If this story makes prominence in the major US dailies tomorrow, he will have completely outmaneuvered Senator Clinton in terms of their recent sparring. Score one for the Honorable Senator from Illinois.

J. Otto, Bronx, New York, USA

Do you really think that there are not already American troops in Pakistan? Obama's only mistake was speaking out loud with regard to a "secret war" that we all know is already taking place.

Brett Pike, Seattle,

Someone should do an analysis to assess whether the USA and it’s politics could continue to function without aggressive military activity overseas - ie some form of war or engagement or it’s immediate threat - and what might be the broad results if that occurred. The analysis and it’s conclusions would be most instructive and should be widely published.

Henry Percy, London, UK

Mary, Los Angeles, CA
If it weren't for communist states (they never were communist, they just called themselves that), you would've reintroduced slavery, there wouldn't be a minimum wage and no public services for free.

Igor, Ljubljana, Slovenia

K. Brown of Los Angeles and others sum up the position well.

Is Obama high on something or other?

We have had enough trouble caused directly from invasion of other countries.

What is scary is that those going for election will say and do anything to garner votes and popularity.

K Urban, London, UK

Mary, Los Angeles, CA

What a totally naive and misguided statement; do you seriously think that America is solely responsible for defeat of Hitler and the cessation of the cold war?

Please before you spew patriotic rhetoric, read a history book first…

With regards to the US and its absolute immaculate history with regards to saving the world from evil; what about the 25 years of violence conducted by the IRA?

Did YOU SAVE US then?

You give us a break…

FT, Cambridge, UK

Ah... politicians. They learn, early in their inexperienced careers, to move with the flow of voter's opinions, even if they change their views as easy as they change their socks. They will either take oppossing views from one day to the next.

Barack Hussein Obama is a left-wing politician who feels the need to re-invent himself a centrist and a demi-hawk. The truth is he would instead "dialogue", consider "peaceful coexistence", and "appease" which are the central theme of the socialist-democrats.

Sheikh Obama is just trying to look tough.

Jay, Austin, TX

Just goes to show the Americans just have not learnt their lessons. Shame on you Obama; I thought you were a refreshing change. Talk about scratching the surface.

Alfred Joseph, Weston-Super-Mare, UK

To Shaffiq Mahmood, let Iran and Cuba try and watch what happens.

Back on topic... America has a score to settle with those terrorists in Western Pakistan. That's where America should be right now. Americans are not tired of war, we're just tired of the Iraq War. Those terrorists who planned 9/11 (namely Al Qaeda) are still operating and I would support any action to deal with them immediately, including operations into Pakistan.

GunRunz, Atlanta, USA/Georgia

Mr Obama, Well Done! What an excellent idea
Yip, the Pakistanis are just waiting with open arms and with "Welcome To Pakistan - Our Dear American Friends" Banners

The term naive, politely put, is an understatement - This is sort of stuff that is only going add to the growing resentment towards the Good old Us of A

Jethro Kwanzi, London, England

Oh man. This guy is so shallow it makes Bush look intelligent. If god forbid he should win, we are in for another Bush for another 4 years.

Joenobody, Los Angeles, USA/CA

Fortunately, for everybody it now seems, Obama does not stand a cat in hells chance of being elected. Not because of his proposed policies, but because America is not ready for a non-White president.

When will these presidential morons learn that the only way to fight terrorism is economic development of these countries and not military campaigns. People with nothing to do and no future to look forward to are easily recruited for a cause. Economic development offers hope and it costs a lot less, both in monetary terms and in human lives.

A. Khan, London,

gb, from Austin, USA -- don't worry, there weren't any attacks in the several years before 9/11 on the `homeland', either. Turns out, that didn't mean anything.

Michael, Atlanta, GA

It's too bad so many people think like GK from Calgary, Canada; yes the country that is terrorist friendly. Only a deaf, dumb & blind person could think al-Qaeda is not our #1 threat. Even a greater threat than our own politicians . Hillary is only interested in telling each group she talks with, what they want to hear. We should attack al-Qaeda where ever our CIA or Military deem necessary. You don't notify the country until as the Operation is starts, otherwise you have another Tora Bora. The weak minded and pacifists think this is cruel and not called for, This is in fact probably the most serious war we have ever been in. I know so many of you keep your head stuck in the sand. It is these weak minded vocal people that will cause us to lose this war. Go Obama, or who ever else has the nerve to tackle this war head on.

Dennis, las vegas, nv

god help us all.

Kambiz Shahri, Pretoria, South Africa, Gauteng

Mr. Obama forgets that the perpetrators of 9/11 were Saudi's and Egyptians. Not Aghans or Pakistanis. US did not act like a great power, going after the poorest and weakest nation on earth, Aghanistan. The Daisy Cutters should have been dropped on the Saudis and Egyptians.

Obama ought to learn how to act as a responsible politician. Starting wars or bombing nations will only make enemies of the entire world.

Khurshid Zaman, St. Petersburg, Florida

If he would do such a thing, which is still the RIGHT thing to do (UBL is still enemy #1 regardless of logistics), what would Musharraf do? He couldn't do anything. We're the only country that would help him from being overthrown and we keep him well funded. he's both scared of being overtaken and left without funds so he's got no choice but to just say "that's reckless!" Unless of course he's actually trying to keep the bad guys safe. And yes, his military is useless in aiding us..but then, we have ZERO ability to gain good intel about locations of the bad guys.

asdf, san francisco,

3000 americans died that day, how many people have u killed to date? how many innocent women and children? how many families and homes destroyed? can u bring them back? rather than making your intelligence agencies better and trying to make your country safe, you have started to invade other countries or threatning others. This wont make you safe it will rather make you unsafe. Furthermore who has given you the authority to be a world's policeman? I think you have only lost votes by saying this.

Tony Foster, Leeds, UK

To all of those who abroad who criticize America from the comfort of your easy chairs, we are once again saving the world FOR YOU. It won't be easy, or painless, or void of mistakes but it will happen. It will happen just as we saved you from the Nazis and communism. Now give us a break and let us do our job.

Mary, Los Angeles, CA

No doubt this is the Obama camp playing the ‘lets appeal to the hawkish democrats’ (and maybe sway a few republicans) card as a (sounds like last ditch) catch up mechanism. But even suggesting such an action just gives more fuel to fundamentalists to gain from the polarisation stemming from fear. Additionally, do quagmires like Iraq not show us that such military intervention (a large attack force hunting small cells of mobile insurgents) is futile? Indeed the hatred it would generate in an already unstable environment such as Pakistan would no doubt erect many more ‘terrorists’. Anyways, for the foreseeable future I doubt such an action would occur unless something reminiscent to Iran’s Islamic revolution were to happen. However, the fact that such dialogue is being touted in the US campaign as an appealing quality in stance in order to gain votes is worrying. Im no great fan of Bhutto either, but one can only hope her return to power may prevent Pakistan's slide down hill.

s vadgama, London,

Obama repeatedly discredits himself and his party. His rhetoric is an extension of the Bush-Cheney approach. When will America realize that the best way to combat terrorism is to stop creating it? America's imperialistic foreign policy is a major cause of terrorism world-wide and Gorbachev is correct in his condemnation of America's strong-arm tactics on the world stage. How many nations must be destroyed before Americans get tired of washing the blood of the innocent from their hands? Revenge has been taken. Approximately 650,000 lives lost in Iraq. Over two hundred Iraqiis for every American lost on 11 September, and the Iraqi state had nothing to do with the attack. Great logic.

Tatiana, Moscow, Russia

This article and the headline really twists what Obama said.

He talked about Pakistan as an ally, and promised increased aid. In return, he said, "Pakistan must make substantial progress in ...preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan".

If they did not do this, yes, he says he would act. But he didn't say it would be by military means.

Just because Bush's definition of 'action' is sending in the troops doesn't mean this is what Obama would do.

E Hazlewood, Wellington,

Doesn't he know that Pakistan has a "real" army and air force and nuclear weapons? What does he expect them to do when we invade their national sovereignty? "the need to take action across the border in Pakistan" means invasion, if you are Pakistani and not an egocentric American.
Talk about Bush/Cheney thinking!!—unless, you believe in Nixonspeak re: Cambodia
He’d better dance out of this one fast or Hillary/Bill will be serving this up forever.

Jane, Pacific, mo

So America is less safe now than before 11/9 because of a war that should not have been authorised and he wants to rectify this by launching an attack inside a country that has supported the War On Terror at huge cost to itself.

Smart man, obviously destined to become the greatest US President since Dubya.

Ashiq, London,

I fail to see how preemptively invading Pakistan to confront faceless jihadists in remote, mountainous territory whose local population will oppose an invading force is going to be any more successful than invading Iraq where we confront faceless jihadists whose local population oppose the invading force...

To invade Pakistan, we will need a draft and we will be there for decades to confront another, inevitable bloody, faceless counterinsurgency while trying to win hearts and minds at the same time.

Of course, a naive lightweight like Obama has not thought this through, but as long as he charms the media over here, he will never have to provide specifics. Of course, he has none. Just political posturing in an attempt to gain a Commander in Chief aura.

Mark, Mountain, North Dakota

Obama is a Politician who doesn't know politics. Pakistan is different from countries of Middle-East. It is the most unstable country with Nuclear Power & full of anti-americans. To hunt for terrorists in Pakistan-Afghan, US should ask for full support & help from Indian Intelligence silently without making Big Scenes.

We haven't been attacked after Sep 11, but we have made ten times more enemies right now than we had before 9/11. So even small mistake from US intelligence can hurt United States & it's closest allies.

Ashish Dave, Fairfield, Iowa

Before we consider who our next president should be we should impeach Bush and Cheney to ensure our Constitution remains in force. As far as invading Pakistan, here is another example of bi-passing the Constitutional laws. Obama and Clinton both know that they can get away with breaking the same laws as Bush and Cheney because they [Bush and Cheney] got away with it. I agree that we need more intelligence in the executive branch. Moreover, intelligence is required for American leadership in the legislative and judiciary branches too. Start impeaching now and save America - a free country. Brian, Midwest

Brian, Des Moines,

It would be interesting to see if this kind of comment starts a trend of candidates outbidding each other, each one upping the ante just to show that they are not a soft touch. The next bid will be to invade both Pakistan and (enter your choice here).

"How to make friends and influence people" is evidently not on the reading list...

Miguel Bengoa, Izmir, Turkey

Mr Obama's speech seems to echo what a lot of Democrats have been saying for years ..... dont pursue the war on terror in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere but instead send troops into the Pakistani mountains to hunt for Osama and his inner circle. Not a practical proposition sadly. As Pres Bush clearly knows, one must deal with the environment around Pakistan and encourage the Pakistanis to be the hammer that will push the terrorists against the anvil of Afghanistan ....

Nervous Investor, Kingston, Jamaica

firing missiles into secret mountain hideout targets attempting to take out our mutual enemies is a lot different than attacking the country of pakistan, with intent to harm it's innocent civilians. it's more like playing the role of exterminator. this could actually help musharraf, as he wouldn't have to be the one to pull the trigger on people hiding out in his own country. good cop bad cop, he could be the good cop.

Peter Nevins, Brooklyn, NY

Yes good idea. invade a country that has nuclear weapons. At least they have WMD. Yes make him president of the USA. Please tell me all Americans are not Gung Ho idiots.

philip walters, rochester, uk

Mr Obama merely stated the obvious, echoing Mr Bush’s recent comments. A country under attack from within the boundaries of another country has a right in international law to protect itself. Of course, it is prudent first to try to work with the government of the country from which the attacks originate. Mr Obama’s remarks were needlessly inflammatory and reflect poorly on his judgment.

Richard Stone Rothblum, Washington, DC/USA

Interesting to see the Democratic candidates scrambling to suggest something/anything they would do to combat terrorism.

Less safe than we were before 9/11? By what standard does Obama draw this conclusion? The US homeland has not been attacked since.

gb, Austin, USA

mr obama seems to be out of his depth by talking about yet invading/attacking another country. will the Americal ever understand the logic of peace and negtiation rather than war? either the American publc are too naive or their leaders are too arrogant to talk all the time interms of force. God bless them and have mercy on their souls.

peacelove, Brsitol, UK

For what it is worth to anyone outside of the United States, I as an American would like to state that I find Barrack Obama foolhardy and naive. In my opinion, he is simply an inexperienced wolf like George Bush masqueraded in sheeps clothing. I have never felt more shame for being an American citizen after the last 8 years, and I hope with all my heart that the nation as a whole will choose wisely this term.

K. Brown, Los Angeles, CA

Maybe the Iranians should send in troops into the US to hunt down dissident terrorists formenting and plotting civil strife and terrorism in Iran. Maybe the Cubans should also send in troops into the US to hunt dissident Cubans.

Shaffiq Mahmood, Halifax, West Yorkshire

Seems like a good time for Al Gore to enter the race and bring some stability to the campaign

Ken, bournemouth, UK

“There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

What in this statement implies or expressly states that he would send in troops or invade Pakistan?

Dawn, Arlington, VA

And once you have invaded Pakistan Obama, what then? Holy smokes, will these people never learn? Pity Bush and pres. Cheyney have just sold 20 billion in arms to Saudi or you could invade them too!

Could someone please publish the IQ's of these presidential candidates? Shouldn't there be some IQ minimum standard before they qualify as candidates?

GK, Calgary, Canada

Obama is becoming the "speak softly and carry a big stick" Democrat. An effective approach when dealing with nations such as Pakistan. Our current president simply carries a big stick and Hillary Clinton simply speaks softly. Barack Obama is reminiscent or JFK or Theodore Roosevelt, to whom the quote belongs.

John, Atlanta, USA

Mr Obama should think before he speaks,,Pakistan is not Afganistan or Iraq,it is a sovereign Nuclear power,it is already fuelled by ANTI AMERICAN sentiments.His speech will only help this cause...MR Obama is reminded that it was America that helped put Pakistan in the mess it is in today by funding the taliban to fight the Soviets. HOW SELFISH AND UNGRATEFUL.

tariq, London, uk

Mr Obama is completely mad! A better way of completely alienating the muslim world I cannot imagine. Better to offer Mr Musharraf better incentives and collaboration for a Pakistan offensive.

Steve, Glasgow, UK

Wow. What an absolute idiot!!

I am absolutely stunned to hear such a statement from a person that I would have considered voting for.

Shocked In London

David, London, UK