NationStates Jolt Archive

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists even without local permission if warranted — an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.

The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.

Looks like Obama is starting to show a spine. That is what I like to see in a Presidential Candidate. I applaud his stance on this issue. His stock has gone up in my book and makes me one step closer to maybe actually voting for him in the General Election.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070801/ap_on_el_pr/obama_terrorism

He wouldn't do it even if he did win the election. Not enough cojones.

Good on him.

Pakistan is doing fuck all to stop the people really, aside from sitting near the border.

They have stopped many attempts to blow up terrorist targets to...

They should be the ones being bombed instead of iraq :\

Oh, but if BUSH did it, "WARMONGER! NAZI!"

Oh, but if BUSH did it, "WARMONGER! NAZI!"

With his past lying (or idiocy) to get us into wars he has earned his "warmonger" title.

He couldn't seriously be that stupid. Just what we need, another invasion. Wee!

Well, so much for the democratic candidates.

Oh, but if BUSH did it, "WARMONGER! NAZI!"

Only because Iraq could never be justified, whereas with Pakistan given its proximity to Afghanistan and the very fact that there are terrorists using Pakistan to launch attacks on NATO and Afghan security forces.

Don't take this to mean I would support such action. I already oppose the two wars. I'm merely stating that in light of the existing facts, there is some form of justification for militaristic action.

The Afghani war was rather warranted, I believe, and if we were to invade the mountainous outer regions of Pakistan, I wouldn't have a problem with that.


Course we'd have to gtfo of Iraq first for me to get behind it.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290073,00.html

I was looking at potentially voting for Obama but after this statement, my respect for him has dropped substantially. Anyone who says that preventing genocide is not a good reason to stay is not fit to lead this country.

I see he brought up the Congo but we are not in the Congo and the African Union was in Darfur and could still be there.

Obama, you want these problems solved then take it to the UN. Oh wait. That has been done with Darfur and not much has been done with it there.

And military troops were used to stop the genocide in Bosnia Obama. Did you forget about that?

Looks like Obama is starting to show a spine. That is what I like to see in a Presidential Candidate. I applaud his stance on this issue. His stock has gone up in my book and makes me one step closer to maybe actually voting for him in the General Election.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070801/ap_on_el_pr/obama_terrorism
Nice flip flop Corny!! :p

So it is not okay if Obama removes troops from Iraq, but will be okay if he invades Pakistan?

Obama loses points with me on this. That would be an even bigger blunder than Iraq. Mursharaff is already walking a tightrope on supporting us and not being assassinated. The unintended consequences could be huge. Al-Qaeda in charge of a nuclear country. It's amazing his complete lack of any foresight and the lack of foresight of people who support this.

Nice flip flop Lancaster!! :p

So it is not okay if Obama removes troops from Iraq, but will be okay if he invades Pakistan?

One thing about Politics that I am sure you are well aware of my lord, is that sometimes, one must put aside things that disgust us in order to make our nations safer.

I do not approve of the fact that he wants to withdraw troops from Iraq but the fact that he is willing to send in troops into Pakistan against the Pakistani wishes, moves him. I look at everything my Lord CanuckHeaven and not just at what party people are.

Obama loses points with me on this. That would be an even bigger blunder than Iraq. Mursharaff is already walking a tightrope on supporting us and not being assassinated. The unintended consequences could be huge. Al-Qaeda in charge of a nuclear country. It's amazing his complete lack of any foresight and the lack of foresight of people who support this.
Not every war is Iraq-style "small footprint" bullshit.

Obama loses points with me on this. That would be an even bigger blunder than Iraq. Mursharaff is already walking a tightrope on supporting us and not being assassinated. The unintended consequences could be huge. Al-Qaeda in charge of a nuclear country. It's amazing his complete lack of any foresight and the lack of foresight of people who support this.
I totally agree. I think a US invasion of Pakistan would be suicidal.

Would such an invasion just inflame the Muslims towards America even more, as well as removing an (admittedly ineffective) ally? It seems an incredibly stupid thing to propose, and I'd imagine it'd be even more bloody than Iraq has been.

You still don't understand the consequences of any semi-high-profile invasion do you?

*coughs* special operation forces *coughs*

You still don't understand the consequences of any semi-high-profile invasion do you?

Enlighten me.

Not every war is Iraq-style "small footprint" bullshit.

You still don't understand the consequences of any semi-high-profile invasion do you?

Here's the scenario.

Musharaff is already walking a tightrope. The only reason that he's still in power is that he allows the western part of his country to be autonomous. If the U.S. invaded, it would appear to the masses that he was in on it as he as always said the U.S. will only do what he allows. Those masses would overthrow him. Al-Qaeda would be a likely candidate to fill the void. Al-Qaeda would then be in charge of nuclear weapons and you have a much more dangerous situation than the Iraq invasion ever was.

Is that why Al-Qaeda is in control of Iraq and Afghanistan?

Wait.

Enlighten me.

Here's the scenario.

Musharaff is already walking a tightrope. The only reason that he's still in power is that he allows the western part of his country to be autonomous. If the U.S. invaded, it would appear to the masses that he was in on it as he as always said the U.S. will only do what he allows. Those masses would overthrow him. Al-Qaeda would be a likely candidate to fill the void. Al-Qaeda would then be in charge of nuclear weapons and you have a much more dangerous situation than the Iraq invasion ever was.

Here's the scenario.

Musharaff is already walking a tightrope. The only reason that he's still in power is that he allows the western part of his country to be autonomous. If the U.S. invaded, it would appear to the masses that he was in on it as he as always said the U.S. will only do what he allows. Those masses would overthrow him. Al-Qaeda would be a likely candidate to fill the void. Al-Qaeda would then be in charge of nuclear weapons and you have a much more dangerous situation than the Iraq invasion ever was.

Um....It would be hard to over throw him unless the military abandons him. Also have to remember that Musharaff sent in troops to the autonomous regions to assist in rooting out possible militants in said region.

Here's the scenario.

Musharaff is already walking a tightrope. The only reason that he's still in power is that he allows the western part of his country to be autonomous. If the U.S. invaded, it would appear to the masses that he was in on it as he as always said the U.S. will only do what he allows. Those masses would overthrow him. Al-Qaeda would be a likely candidate to fill the void. Al-Qaeda would then be in charge of nuclear weapons and you have a much more dangerous situation than the Iraq invasion ever was.

So we allow Bin Laden to safely sit somewhere in Pakistan and drink good Polish vodka...

Um....It would be hard to over throw him unless the military abandons him. Also have to remember that Musharaff sent in troops to the autonomous regions to assist in rooting out possible militants in said region.

And he had to withdraw b/c of the pressure. His military very may well abandon him if he is seen as supporting the infidel.

Great, all we need is another president willing to invade other countries to chase bogeymen against the will of the UN. Go Team America! :rolleyes:

much better than giving him nukes.

Who says its him? Al Qaeda has become increasingly decentralized.

Sure, its possible under your scenario that Al Qaeda could grab power, but it would not be an Al Qaeda state under bin Laden.

They are not in control b/c we are still there. I thought that you didn't want another commitment like those.

But just going to Pakistan hands it over to Al Qaeda?

Bzzt.

So we allow Bin Laden to safely sit somewhere in Pakistan and drink good Polish vodka...

much better than giving him nukes.

Is that why Al-Qaeda is in control of Iraq and Afghanistan?

Wait.

They are not in control b/c we are still there. I thought that you didn't want another commitment like those.

And he had to withdraw b/c of the pressure. His military very may well abandon him if he is seen as supporting the infidel.

Pressure? You mean that they withdrew because of resistence? Also on top of that, let us not forget that there are elections later this year. Why do you think he did not declare a state of emergency?

Isn't Pakistan supposed to be an ally or at least a friendly? Why is he threatening foreign powers?

My name is Robert Stengel. I live in Moline Illinois. Come molest my house.

Shouldn't Iraq be the foremost concern? An invasion of Pakistan would not just thin out troops on ground level but the money going into it aswell? Also lets not forget Pakistani resistance could be much stronger than that of Iraq.

Shouldn't Iraq be the foremost concern? An invasion of Pakistan would not just thin out troops on ground level but the money going into it aswell? Also lets not forget Pakistani resistance could be much stronger than that of Iraq.

1. This assumes we're out of Iraq

2. Why is everyone assuming we are attacking the Pakistani gov't?

See, I told everyone that man's an idiot.

Pressure? You mean that they withdrew because of resistence? Also on top of that, let us not forget that there are elections later this year. Why do you think he did not declare a state of emergency?

No, I mean internal pressure. He knows how to stay in power. The United States invading would not be very helpful to that. If you can't see how much of a disaster this would be then I'm wondering how you could ever criticize Bush for going to war in Iraq.

No, I mean internal pressure. He knows how to stay in power. The United States invading would not be very helpful to that. If you can't see how much of a disaster this would be then I'm wondering how you could ever criticize Bush for going to war in Iraq.

Bush went after the country.

Obama would go after people in the country.

No, I mean internal pressure. He knows how to stay in power. The United States invading would not be very helpful to that. If you can't see how much of a disaster this would be then I'm wondering how you could ever criticize Bush for going to war in Iraq.

You mean internal pressures from the western regions who broke the peace treaty and are harboring fighters who flee Afghanistan?

That agreement, struck last autumn, was the cornerstone of the Pakistani government's efforts to consolidate a fragile peace process. Under the agreement, the government announced it was pulling back military troops in return for promises from tribal leaders to stop anyone from venturing into Afghanistan to fight Afghan forces and Western troops, including the U.S. military.

Since the agreement was struck, Western officials including U.S. officials have criticized it on the grounds that it had given sanctuary to militants holed up in the north Waziristan region and even allowed some to travel back and forth to Afghanistan, all with the purpose of joining the bands of anti-U.S. "Taliban" fighters.

Pakistani officials have been engaged in hectic backroom discussions with tribal leaders since Sunday. But increasing violence in the region has diminished hopes for the restoration of the agreement.

that is from CBSNews (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/18/world/main3068644.shtml)

Also, apparently the troop withdrawl was not as complete as you assume. For in the same article:

Tribal leaders are calling for a complete withdrawal of Pakistani military troops from north Waziristan before the agreement can be revived. But Pakistani officials insist more violence will only force them to send more troops to quell the unrest.

"How can you not have the military in place," said the Pakistani security official who spoke to CBS News, "when there's growing violence?"

So I guess that throws your comment about withdrawing is out. Have they withdrawn? Yes but it was not a complete withdrawl.

Just to top off the article:

Opinion among western and Pakistani officials is divided over the consequences of ending the agreement.

"This [breakdown] now forces General Pervez Musharraf [Pakistan's president] to look at reality as it is," a senior Western diplomat, said Wednesday in Islamabad, speaking on condition of anonymity. "The hope of pulling out troops was a non-starter, at least not till the base of terrorists in Waziristan is totally wiped out."

Pakistani officials insist the only way to move forward is through the support and cooperation of local tribal leaders. "Without having the local population on our side, we can't make progress," concluded the Pakistani security official who spoke to CBS News.

Meanwhile, Pakistan has been put on "red alert" - the highest level of peacetime alert after the Islamabad blast. One senior Pakistani security official who spoke to CBS NEWSon the condition of anonymity said; "The crisis is deepening and more attacks may come".

*sighs* At least I know of American doesn't think in this bizarre way. Hmm... I can just about hear someone screaming 'THIS IS U. S. A!!'

Well, at least it would give the rest of NATO an excuse to withdraw from Afganistan.

Maybe Obama should slag off Australia a bit more before he does this though.

You mean internal pressures from the western regions who broke the peace treaty and are harboring fighters who flee Afghanistan?



that is from CBSNews (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/18/world/main3068644.shtml)

Also, apparently the troop withdrawl was not as complete as you assume. For in the same article:



So I guess that throws your comment about withdrawing is out. Have they withdrawn? Yes but it was not a complete withdrawl.

Just to top off the article:


The descriptions on what to do sound a lot like Iraq. "We cannot leave until the base terrorists are wiped out," etc.

Looks like Obama is starting to show a spine. That is what I like to see in a Presidential Candidate. I applaud his stance on this issue. His stock has gone up in my book and makes me one step closer to maybe actually voting for him in the General Election.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070801/ap_on_el_pr/obama_terrorism

Its just talk.

The descriptions on what to do sound a lot like Iraq. "We cannot leave until the base terrorists are wiped out," etc.

That depends, I suppose.


The best way to do this would be diplomatically, or as a spec ops thing.

The thing is, I don't see it happening. This is just a bluff to get Pakistan into helping as well as get the votes of the violent USians who believe in bombing for peace.

After looking at Afganistan and IRaq and seeing the state of those countries after the US was done with them, I think Pakistan would come around because they also wouldn't want to lose all that military aid and their nuclear facilities.

I'd like to point out that this could have all been debated, settled, invaded and done with if distractions like Iraq hadn't kept the military from fighting the Real war on terrorism in the first place.

I'd like to point out that this could have all been debated, settled, invaded and done with if distractions like Iraq hadn't kept the military from fighting the Real war on terrorism in the first place.

Indeed. This has been a rather long war, hasn't it? We invaded Iraq in 2003, here it is 4 years later.

Musharref is doing the best job he can to keep Pakistan from becoming a theocracy.
Invading the country and compromising his government could be disastrous, not to mention the American tendency for collateral damage.

I would rather Bin Laden and his ilk go free than have one Pakistani herdsman's blood on my nation's hands.

Indeed. This has been a rather long war, hasn't it? We invaded Iraq in 2003, here it is 4 years later.

Nah, that's short. Look how long Britain fought the french republic/napoleon.

if Obama wins the primary and depending on who he chooses as a vice he may just end up being a best of the worst option. i can put up with him more then i can even think of putting up with Hillary

and i hate to say this but i would choose Hillary over Edwards any day.

if Obama wins the primary and depending on who he chooses as a vice he may just end up being a best of the worst option. i can put up with him more then i can even think of putting up with Hillary

and i hate to say this but i would choose Hillary over Edwards any day.

Almost the same here. I like his "seeming" lack of blemish: he has little background in special interests and has yet to be hardened by bitter political divides within the party.

"Seeming" because this is most likely bullshit.

That depends, I suppose.


The best way to do this would be diplomatically, or as a spec ops thing.

Actually, I meant in regards to the Pakistani problems in the Waziristan region.

Wow, an invasion of Pakistan.....

Okay, exactly what would happen, lets think about it shall we? A) We won't find Bin Laden. Why, because if we had any damn clue where he was he would already be dead! B) We would lose one of the only allies we have in that region....thats bad. Just so you know. C) America would continue to be seen as the imperial scum of the earth! Just attacking anyone they want without fear of the consequences!

Thats my two cents.

Wow, an invasion of Pakistan.....

Okay, exactly what would happen, lets think about it shall we? A) We won't find Bin Laden. Why, because if we had any damn clue where he was he would already be dead! B) We would lose one of the only allies we have in that region....thats bad. Just so you know. C) America would continue to be seen as the imperial scum of the earth! Just attacking anyone they want without fear of the consequences!

Thats my two cents.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4110786.stm

Two years ago. "Excellent idea" my ass.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4110786.stm

Two years ago. "Excellent idea" my ass.

I mean really....how does THE MOST WANTED MAN IN THE WORLD evade capture for so long? How many countries and their military's are looking for him? Its total bullshit when you think about. I don't think we will ever find Bin Laden.

Two years ago. "Excellent idea" my ass.



I have replied twice, maybe this one won't be moderated.

How can Bin Laden evade capture. Either he's smarter than we give him credit for, or we're dumber than we care to admit.

Musharref is doing the best job he can to keep Pakistan from becoming a theocracy.
Invading the country and compromising his government could be disastrous, not to mention the American tendency for collateral damage.

I would rather Bin Laden and his ilk go free than have one Pakistani herdsman's blood on my nation's hands.

I was gonna do an Israeli joke with the collateral damage thing, but it left me.

He couldn't seriously be that stupid. Just what we need, another invasion. Wee!

Well, so much for the democratic candidates.

Yeah. Just because you talk tough and send troops doesn't make you tough. And we're already neck deep in Iraq.

Corny, you're distorting. What Obama said is that he might have opperations cross over the border to just the other side of the border to carry out ongoing missions without Pakistani permission. Right now, lots of Al Quaeda in Afghanistan are hiding just on the other side of the border with Pakistan.

Edit: What he said

"As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

No, I mean internal pressure. He knows how to stay in power. The United States invading would not be very helpful to that. If you can't see how much of a disaster this would be then I'm wondering how you could ever criticize Bush for going to war in Iraq.

Are you the guy DK is going to claim is his specialist friend from "THE Army Forum" TM?

Hmm, yeah thats probably a bad idea. But for fucks sake americans, even if he's not Mary fucking Poppins, do NOT vote independent or the republicans will win!!! Democrat ftw.

Lancaster, you're distorting. What Obama said is that he might have opperations cross over the border to just the other side of the border to carry out ongoing missions without Pakistani permission. Right now, lots of Al Quaeda in Afghanistan are hiding just on the other side of the border with Pakistan.

Show me where I am distorting? Last time I checked, sending troops across the border, without permission, constitutes an invasion. Frankly, I was surprised he even said this hence why his stock rose up in my eyes. Now please show me where I am distorting thing?

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

I agree entirely. Thank you!

Hmm, yeah thats probably a bad idea. But for fucks sake americans, even if he's not Mary fucking Poppins, do NOT vote independent or the republicans will win!!! Democrat ftw.

OOOKK!!! Now that we have this post...let us move on.

OOOKK!!! Now that we have this post...let us move on.

Ok? I thought you were a republican.

Ok? I thought you were a republican.

I am an independent leaning republican but I have voted for dems before. Just not at the federal level as yet.

I am an independent leaning republican but I have voted for dems before. Just not at the federal level as yet.

Thats the spirit! Just remember thes rules: democracy in the USA is unfair representation, independent parties are fucked, so vote democrat!

Thats the spirit! Just remember thes rules: democracy in the USA is unfair representation, independent parties are fucked, so vote democrat!

The last person that tried to tell me how to vote got an earful about the proper way of voting. As an American, I will vote for whomever I feel deserves to hold the office they are running for. If that means I vote democrat, fine. If that means I vote for a republican, fine. If that means I vote independent, that is fine too.

I am not going to be told by someone who lives in Britain how to vote.

The last person that tried to tell me how to vote got an earful about the proper way of voting. As an American, I will vote for whomever I feel deserves to hold the office they are running for. If that means I vote democrat, fine. If that means I vote for a republican, fine. If that means I vote independent, that is fine too.

No it aint.


I am not going to be told by someone who lives in Britain how to vote.

Too late.

How wonderful. Having found that riding roughshod over smaller states tends to wind them up somewhat, US politicians promptly posture so as to do the very same again.

Bombing Pakistan without their approval would simply force another Islamic government to seek the support of Al Quaeda, and further alienate the Muslim world.

No it aint.

To you but not to me. Good day!

God what is wrong with american politicians? Attacking an unstable militaristic government that has nuclear weapons, is probably not a good thing to do. Forking morons :(

To you but not to me. Good day!

That is naive beyond all reasonable comprehension. Do you truly place that much faith in a system of government that empowers the slack-jawed, reality television watching mass of idiots of the world?

You can't expect every country in the world to evict terrorists.

Here's the scenario.

Musharaff is already walking a tightrope. The only reason that he's still in power is that he allows the western part of his country to be autonomous. If the U.S. invaded, it would appear to the masses that he was in on it as he as always said the U.S. will only do what he allows. Those masses would overthrow him. Al-Qaeda would be a likely candidate to fill the void. Al-Qaeda would then be in charge of nuclear weapons and you have a much more dangerous situation than the Iraq invasion ever was.

The problem with that scenario is that it assumes that radical extremists / AQ / talibani types are ready to takeover Pakistan.....which is an image projected largely by Musharraf.

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=19422&prog=zgp&proj=zsa
Key Conclusions:

• Pakistan’s army has inflated the threat of religious sectarianism and jihadi extremism outside its borders, particularly in Afghanistan and Kashmir, for its own self-interest. Faced with this seeming instability and a perceived lack of alternatives, the West adopted a more lenient attitude toward Pakistan’s military regime as a moderate stalwart against Islamic extremism.

Musharref is doing the best job he can to keep Pakistan from becoming a theocracy.

What difference does it make ?

Pakistan under some religious ruler and allowing jihadis to wage jihad against all and sundry or Pakistan under some army general and allowing jihadis to wage jihad against all and sundry ?

The problem with your theory is that it assumes that islamist parties are on the verge of getting a popular mandate from the people. This goes against a history of them not getting more than about 10% votes until now.

It also assumes that the army will just roll over and let somebody come to rule.

This goes against a history of them plotting to depose civilian rule and even hanging a prime minister (Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto) just because he was developing into an alternate power centre.

What difference does it make ?

Pakistan under some religious ruler and allowing jihadis to wage jihad against all and sundry or Pakistan under some army general and allowing jihadis to wage jihad against all and sundry ?

The problem with your theory is that it assumes that islamist parties are on the verge of getting a popular mandate from the people. This goes against a history of them not getting more than about 10% votes until now.

It also assumes that the army will just roll over and let somebody come to rule.

This goes against a history of them plotting to depose civilian rule and even hanging a prime minister (Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto) just because he was developing into an alternate power centre.

Because of the actions of the US government, every Islamic nation is ripe for fundamentalism Pakistan is no different as evidenced by the recent surge in the islamisist parties.
Besides my reasons for not wanting to be involved there have much more to do with not wanting to see more innocents die in America's mad lust for revenge, which it has more than satisfied a thousand times over.

Corny, you're distorting.
Just like he is distorting our responses by editing out Corny and changing it to Lancaster. :D

Are you the guy DK is going to claim is his specialist friend from "THE Army Forum" TM?

No, but i was looking at a post by RO before where he gave out information about someone that he got on AKO. I'm pretty sure that you can get in a lot of trouble for that.

Wow, you do realize right guys that Musharaff cannot look for his own sake like an American puppet, and if US troops were sent into Pakistan it would be an invasion as defined by the UN, Musharaff would have to respond for his own sake if nothing else.

Also, attacking a nuclear-armed military state = fail.

Because of the actions of the US government, every Islamic nation is ripe for fundamentalism

And backing a military dictator like Musharraf helps that how?

Pakistan is no different as evidenced by the recent surge in the islamisist parties.

What recent surge ?

Are you talking about the recent bombings? Did you notice that they stopped just like that?

Here's a transcript of a taped conversation between the then Lt Gen Mohd Aziz, Chief of General Staff and Musharraf who was the COAS during Kargil war.

http://www.india-today.com/kargil/audio.html
But he was also saying that any escalation after that should be regulated as there may be the danger of war. On this logic, we gave the suggestion that there was no such fear as the scruff (tooti) of their (militants) neck is in our hands, whenever you want, we could regulate it.

You apparently have no idea how deep the ties run between the army and its dogs of war. The dogs may bark and snipe sometimes at the master but the master has the stick and the food.

Besides my reasons for not wanting to be involved there have much more to do with not wanting to see more innocents die in America's mad lust for revenge, which it has more than satisfied a thousand times over.

Either you keep out of the area or you do the job properly.

The current strategy of propping the army is killing Afghans and Indians. I suppose it is ok for them to die. They must not be innocent.

Oh, but if BUSH did it, "WARMONGER! NAZI!"

You mean if a REPUBLICAN president did it they would scream "WARMONGER! NAZI!"

Which is not to say that Bush is not a Republican, but rather that it doesn't matter as much that he's a Bush as it does that he's a Republican.

The news media will tolerate such tough talk and perhaps even corresponding action from a Democrat president, but not from a Republican. They will vilify a Republican president no matter what course of action he takes, because they hate Republicans; if Bush had NOT gone into Iraq, the media would be criticizing him for overlooking/ignoring the terrible plight of the Iraqi people, or insisting that Saddam DID have WMDs, or some other politically correct excuse to demonize Bush.

And that is not to say that I'm a fan of Bush, because I'm NOT; but that the news media are biased against Republicans.

But if Obama sending troops into Pakistan means the forces of terrorism are weakened and the USA made safer therefrom, I say more power to him.

Hmm, yeah thats probably a bad idea. But for fucks sake americans, even if he's not Mary fucking Poppins, do NOT vote independent or the republicans will win!!! Democrat ftw.

Uh...I think I'll vote for whoever I feel like voting for.

No it aint.

Keep talking...we're not listening.

As for Obama, he's edging dangerously close to being as naive about foreign policy as I considered Bush to be in 2000.

That's certainly not a good thing...and it sure as hell won't win my vote.

Hmm, yeah thats probably a bad idea. But for fucks sake americans, even if he's not Mary fucking Poppins, do NOT vote independent or the republicans will win!!! Democrat ftw.

Of course, we haven't had an independent candidate since 1992 (Ross Perot). Unless you meant "third party", but if you did you should probably say as much.

I can't believe people don't see the fact that the way you win wars is by breaking the enemies will to fight. We aren't doing this at all, for the United States to win this war against radical Muslims, lots of people will have to die. I'm so tired of people who know nothing or next to nothing talking about fighting wars, if you haven't done it on one level or another I bet you don't know what you are talking about. How did the US win WW2? We destroyed Japan and Germany's will to fight, how did we do that? By wholesale destruction of their countries. Winning wars is pretty simple, but with the number of awww poor this person and poor this person, we will lose this war.

I can't believe people don't see the fact that the way you win wars is by breaking the enemies will to fight. We aren't doing this at all, for the United States to win this war against radical Muslims, lots of people will have to die. I'm so tired of people who know nothing or next to nothing talking about fighting wars, if you haven't done it on one level or another I bet you don't know what you are talking about. How did the US win WW2? We destroyed Japan and Germany's will to fight, how did we do that? By wholesale destruction of their countries. Winning wars is pretty simple, but with the number of awww poor this person and poor this person, we will lose this war.

What about the war against radical Christians? Perhaps we should start nuking our own nation?

Uh...I think I'll vote for whoever I feel like voting for.


And I think I'll try to convince who ever I want to vote democrat.


Keep talking...we're not listening.


...

yes you are.

Of course, we haven't had an independent candidate since 1992 (Ross Perot). Unless you meant "third party", but if you did you should probably say as much.

But the point is, it looks like there will be an independent candidate this time.

You mean if a REPUBLICAN president did it they would scream "WARMONGER! NAZI!"

Which is not to say that Bush is not a Republican, but rather that it doesn't matter as much that he's a Bush as it does that he's a Republican.

The news media will tolerate such tough talk and perhaps even corresponding action from a Democrat president, but not from a Republican. They will vilify a Republican president no matter what course of action he takes, because they hate Republicans; if Bush had NOT gone into Iraq, the media would be criticizing him for overlooking/ignoring the terrible plight of the Iraqi people, or insisting that Saddam DID have WMDs, or some other politically correct excuse to demonize Bush.

And that is not to say that I'm a fan of Bush, because I'm NOT; but that the news media are biased against Republicans.

But if Obama sending troops into Pakistan means the forces of terrorism are weakened and the USA made safer therefrom, I say more power to him.

EL-OH-FUCKING-EL.

Facts or GTFO.


Oh LAWD. I haven't laughed that hard all day.

What about the war against radical Christians? Perhaps we should start nuking our own nation?

When is the last time that radical Christians were blowing themselves up and trying to impose their will on America?

Obama just lost my vote.

That is naive beyond all reasonable comprehension. Do you truly place that much faith in a system of government that empowers the slack-jawed, reality television watching mass of idiots of the world?

Do you? I believe Winston Churchill said it best. "Democracy is the worst kind of government except for all the others"

But the point is, it looks like there will be an independent candidate this time.

And whom will that be?

And backing a military dictator like Musharraf helps that how?
I prefer a secular military dictatorship to a theocracy.
Compare Iraq ten years from now with Iraq ten years ago.
Either you keep out of the area or you do the job properly.

The current strategy of propping the army is killing Afghans and Indians. I suppose it is ok for them to die. They must not be innocent.
In that case, I say we leave. We can only ever do harm anywhere we go. Our soldiers aren't trained for peacekeeping and our officers don't have the patience to properly govern an occupied territory.

In the good old days, killing commies was in vogue. Who gets persecuted after the Muslims?

In the good old days, killing commies was in vogue. Who gets persecuted after the Muslims?

The Latinos. There's enough that we can even put them into camps like we did with the Japanese. :)

I prefer a secular military dictatorship to a theocracy.

You are taking a stand based on your personal "preferences" regardless of actual realities.

What "Secular military dictatorship" do you speak of?

The motto of the Pak army is "Iman, Taqwa, Jihad fi Sabilillah" - meaning Faith, Piety, Jihad in the path of Allah.

All this "secular dictator", "enlightened moderation" crap is drama for the west that you so naively swallow.

You fail to answer simple questions.

What difference does it make if I am still getting killed by a jihadi trained and armed in Pakistan?

Why do you assume that if Musharraf is gone, it will be a "theocracy" (taliban style?) ?

Has it occurred to you that it is this "After me the deluge" scenario fits perfectly for Musharraf?

Do you know that it was Musharraf who split the PML party that helped split the votes and the MMA party (Muttahida Majlis Amal) got more seats as a result in election. Traditionally they struggle to get even get 10% percent of the votes.

There is a reason why MMA is called Mullah-Military Alliance.

Compare Iraq ten years from now with Iraq ten years ago.

Different countries, different circumstances, different histories, different types of people, different different different.


In that case, I say we leave. We can only ever do harm anywhere we go. Our soldiers aren't trained for peacekeeping and our officers don't have the patience to properly govern an occupied territory.

You left before like that once. 1989 - after the Soviet withdrawal, US also withdrew leaving Afghanistan to the Pakistanis and Saudis. That is what resulted in taliban.

If you leave now, there will be a repeat of it. Although Iran and India can prop up the Northern Alliance, the numbers and logistical advantage is with the Pakistanis who can put in more men with more arms in shorter time. Bolstered by this victory against the US, there will be renewed vigor in jihadi circles and then there will be some terrorist attack in US and an enraged US will again bomb the shit out of mud huts.

Again Pakistani general will offer to be an ally and again again again again....


OR you bite the bullet NOW and clean up the mess NOW from the SOURCE.

To substantiate my arguments,

http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/aug/03jk.htm
Ten persons, including a senior army officer and a trooper, were killed during a three-day gun battle on the Line of Control near the border town of Uri in north Kashmir.

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/002200708030340.htm
Cross border infiltration set to increase: Army

Uri (J&K), Aug. 3 (PTI): Infiltration from across the border is likely to increase as over 2,000 militants of Lashkar-e-Toiba are waiting for an opportunity to sneak into Kashmir valley, a senior army officer said Thursday.

"We expect infiltration to increase this month in view of the Independence Day," Major General, Ramesh Halgali, General Officer Commanding of 19 Infantry Division, said.

The militants, especially from Lashker-e-Toiba and other foreign outfits, are waiting to cross over here to increase militancy in the valley, he said.

Nearly 2,000 militants of LeT alone have been brought to the borders to sneak into Kashmir, Halgali said. Jawans and officers guarding the Line of Control are maintaining tight vigil to scuttle infiltration bids.

This disclosure comes a day after eight foreign LeT militants were killed in a prolonged operation in this sector. An army Colonel, V Vasanth, and a jawan were killed in the encounter.

Why is Lashkar-e-Toiba still allowed to operate?

Note that it's headquarters is in Muridke - some 50 Kms IIRC (~30 miles) from Lahore - the second biggest city of Pakistan.

It is certainly not in the "lawless tribal regions".

He couldn't seriously be that stupid. Just what we need, another invasion. Wee!

Well, so much for the democratic candidates.

Going into Pakistan would make Iraq look like a Girl Scout Convention.

Going into Pakistan would make Iraq look like a Girl Scout Convention.
Only if we overthrew the president, dissolved the government, dissolved the military and police forces, and then went around being culturally belligerent with guns.

Compare Iraq ten years from now with Iraq ten years ago.cant see 10 years into the future.. -so- I can only compare Iraq of today VS Iraq ten years ago.
.


In that case, I say we leave.I agree.
.

I prefer a secular military dictatorship to a theocracy.Yes, but what do THEY prefer?

what do their people prefer?

Only if we overthrew the president, dissolved the government, dissolved the military and police forces, and then went around being culturally belligerent with guns.

Is there any other way to do it?:D

Why is Lashkar-e-Toiba still allowed to operate?

Note that it's headquarters is in Muridke - some 50 Kms IIRC (~30 miles) from Lahore - the second biggest city of Pakistan.

It is certainly not in the "lawless tribal regions".

Please forgive my limited knowledge of the Kashmir conflict, but isn’t Kashmir a conflict between India and Pakistan, in which Pakistan is the weaker party, and would the incursions of Lashkar-e-Toiba therefore not be in the direct interest of Pakistan? Why would Pakistan want to dissolve this organisation?

Only if we overthrew the president, dissolved the government, dissolved the military and police forces, and then went around being culturally belligerent with guns.

I bet that just interfering in the tribal areas could plunge Pakistan into a civil war. Which you would have to do if you went after al-Q in Pakistan.

Yes, but what do THEY prefer?

what do their people prefer?

This is politics, no one listens to the people. Well the poor ones at least.

Hmm... Maybe Obama really is naive?

Honestly, the reason the US is doing so poorly is because of these pointless invasions of other countries. If the US put those billions of dollars into supporting infrastructure things like bridge collapses and cities flooding would never happen. However keep spending those dollars on invasions...the more the your dollar goes down the hole the more i consider buying a nice island off Washington coast for real cheap! :p

Hmm... Maybe Obama really is naive?

No! You don't say! :eek:

I remember posting a week before that Obama wanted to invade Pakistan, and people here parsed it to defend him - saying that he didn't want to invade Pakistan.

Whoa, turns out I was right...

:eek:

Was it that you didn't believe that Obama could be that dumb?

I remember posting a week before that Obama wanted to invade Pakistan, and people here parsed it to defend him - saying that he didn't want to invade Pakistan.
Because that isn't what he had said.


Whoa, turns out I was right...
Are you professing psychic powers now? That makes "psychic," what? Your 50th different job? Being right after the fact means diddly squat, your original statement was based on the data being manipulated in your own biased mind.

I remember posting a week before that Obama wanted to invade Pakistan, and people here parsed it to defend him - saying that he didn't say he wanted to invade Pakistan at that time.

Whoa, turns out I was wrong...

:eek:

Fixed it for you :)

Because that isn't what he had said.

Are you professing psychic powers now? That makes "psychic," what? Your 50th different job? Being right after the fact means diddly squat, your original statement was based on the data being manipulated in your own biased mind.

No, it's what he said. You say that's not what he said because you wanted to finely parse his statements in the hopes that he wasn't a fucking idiot.

No, it's what he said.
No, it isn't. Oh wait, I forgot, you're a psychic, never mind.

At least Obama is no Tom Tancredo (http://www.pr-inside.com/republican-candidate-advocates-threat-to-r193291.htm). :)

Why, oh why, is there no presidential candidates with a good foreign policy program?

At least Obama is no Tom Tancredo (http://www.pr-inside.com/republican-candidate-advocates-threat-to-r193291.htm). :)

Why, oh why, is there no presidential candidates with a good foreign policy program?

Because both parties seem to believe that the first prerequisite is a big ego, and the second prerequisite is an IQ below 80.

Yay more war just what we need!!!:mp5:

An IQ of 80, that high for a presidental canidate, screw this I'm movin to my country.

would the incursions of Lashkar-e-Toiba therefore not be in the direct interest of Pakistan? Why would Pakistan want to dissolve this organisation?

L-e-T activities are in the direct interest of the regime. It is a construct of the regime. So there is no reason why they would dissolve it.

Hence, I see no reason why I should let go off the portrayal of Musharraf as "secular benevolent dictator better than the beards who speak in languages we don't understand".

Let the people of Pakistan decide what they want to do with their country. And if their elected representatives continue the same policies, at least we know that that's what the people want and act accordingly.

Because both parties seem to believe that the first prerequisite is a big ego, and the second prerequisite is an IQ below 80.

...this seems to be frighteningly close to the truth...