O'DONNELL: If he's serious about making sure that Afghanistan doesn't become a safe haven for terrorists, why he has said that he supports this random time withdrawal? When we've reached benchmarks [for self-defense], that's when we withdraw.
COONS: I question whether your standard gives us any hope of winding up this war on any reasonable timeline.
COONS: I would support a negotiated resolution that allowed us to leave security and intelligence assets in place and that allowed us the opportunity to reengage, should the Taliban take control again, or allow al Qaeda to reemerge as a real threat.
O'DONNELL: If he's serious about making sure that Afghanistan doesn't become a safe haven for terrorists, why, on the campaign trail, he has said that he supports this random time withdrawal? We have to support our men and women who are risking their lives. A random withdrawal will simply embolden the terrorists to come out after us even more, saying I've chased away the super power. When we withdraw from Afghanistan, we need to make sure that there are benchmarks in place: making sure that there's a representative government that serves the needs of the people and that can defend themselves. When we've reached these benchmarks, that's when we withdraw.
CARPER: Now that North Korea is where it is, we ought to talk with them and engage them directly.
TING: The reality is that we’re talking to the North Koreas all the time, formally and informally. So that channel of communication is open. The key to any of our plans succeeding in North Korea is the cooperation of China and Russia. We ought to remember how Communism dissolved in Eastern Europe. In our contingency planning, we ought to think about how people can get out of North Korea. We need to reassure China that they won’t be stuck with a million refugees. We ought to have alternatives in North Korea instead of only military solutions.
CARPER: We had a West Germany and an East Germany, and we were able to keep the lid on there long enough until they could become one country again. Our challenge with North Korea is to keep the lid on until those natural family attractions can go together and create one country.
CARPER: We took our eye off the ball when the President put the primary emphasis on regime change in Iraq. Now that North Korea is where it is, we ought to talk with them and engage them directly. The idea of saying that we can only meet with other nations at the table is foolish. Just because you ignore somebody doesn’t mean they’re going to go away. The approach that makes sense is not a unilateral embargo-but a multinational embargo. We can cover shipments by sea, but we need the Chinese to cover their borders as well. Our willingness to engage directly with North Koreans means we can say, “You’re not gonna have nuclear weapons. If you’re willing to set that aside, you can have a non-aggression treaty with us, and food and energy for your people.” If we’re willing to take that direct course, then The Russians and the Chinese will be more willing to enforce not a unilateral embargo but an international embargo that shuts them down
|2012 Presidential contenders on War & Peace:|
Green: Dr.Jill Stein(MA)
Libertarian: Gov.Gary Johnson(NM)
Justice: Mayor Rocky Anderson(UT)
Constitution: Rep.Virgil Goode(VA)
Peace+Freedom: Roseanne Barr(HI)
Reform Party: André Barnett(NY)
AmericansElect: Gov.Buddy Roemer(LA)
Please consider a donation to OnTheIssues.org!
Click for details -- or send donations to:
1770 Mass Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140
(We rely on your support!)