NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7702679.stm


'US strike' on Pakistani village

Previous attacks in North Waziristan have damaged villages

At least 15 people have been killed in a suspected US missile strike in Pakistan, security officials said.

They said the attack hit a house in the village of Mir Ali, in North Waziristan, bordering Afghanistan.

Reports said the target of the attack was an al-Qaeda operative, but it was unclear if he was among the dead.

Officials named the man as Abu Kasha, believed to be Iraqi. Residents said a Pakistani tribesman lived in the house. The US military has not commented.

The US has launched many missile strikes from Afghanistan against suspected militant targets recently.

Border tension

In Friday's incident, two missiles were fired by a pilotless "drone" aircraft, anonymous officials told Reuters news agency.

On Sunday, a suspected US missile strike killed 20 people, including a top Taleban commander Mohammad Omar in South Waziristan, witnesses and officials said.

Tensions between the US and Pakistan have increased over the issue of cross-border incursions against militants by American forces based in Afghanistan.

Pakistan's foreign ministry said it had voiced its concern to the US envoy in Islamabad on Wednesday.

"It was underscored to the ambassador that the government of Pakistan strongly condemns the missile attacks which resulted in the loss of precious lives and property," the ministry said in a statement.

Well, can they control themselves? The leadership of the American military is out of control and something needs to be done, in my opinion. Your thoughts?

The American military is out of control and something needs to be done, in my opinion. Your thoughts?

Sorry to tell you but the military doesn't make decisions to attack targets like this. It's the civilian leadership (and I use the term "leadership" loosely) who makes this sort of call.

The leadership then, I'll change it.

The leadership then, I'll change it.

Also note that by civilian leadership I'm referring to the higher ups in the Department of Defense and the President. I'm not sure who exactly can authorize raids into Pakistan, but given Pakistan's recent stance on US troops entering their country I'm willing to bet it's the President or the Secretary of Defense.

Yes, Bush is an a*shole, but soon he won't be president. YAY!:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Yes, Bush is an a*shole, but soon he won't be president. YAY!:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Yes, then Obama will be President.

He's promised to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan, and invade Pakistan to eliminate Bin Laden and "secure" Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

Happy now?

^ Lol. The war in Afghanistan is justified though. As is going in to Pakistan to eliminate Bin Laden and other terrorists. Not with missiles though. Send in the SAS, they'll do the job.

Yes, then Obama will be President.

He's promised to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan, and invade Pakistan to eliminate Bin Laden and "secure" Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

Happy now?

And yet Republicans still accuse him of being a closet Muslim who'll turn the US into the Caliphate of America.

Yes, then Obama will be President.

He's promised to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan, and invade Pakistan to eliminate Bin Laden and "secure" Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

Happy now?

Way to totally mischaracterize his position.

The US does want a bigger war. Nobody wants to be the first president since FDR to deal with unemployment north of 15%.

And all of this might have not happened if Reagan didn't interfere with us in the '80s :rolleyes:

Yes, then Obama will be President.

He's promised to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan, and invade Pakistan

I'm certain you have a source for this rather bold claim?

I'm certain you have a source for this rather bold claim?

Haven't you been watching the presidential debates?

And all of this might have not happened if Reagan didn't interfere with us in the '80s :rolleyes:

Carter. He was behind the Mujahideen. (Well, more specifically zbigniew brzezinski).

Haven't you been watching the presidential debates?

Have you? So perhaps you can quote the exact words he used when he promised to invade Pakistan? "the presidential debates" is not a citation of any use for discussion.

(Well, more specifically zbigniew brzezinski).

What?

it seems to me as an outsider that America is catching the same nasty expansionist bug as the British had in the 19th century.


there doing it for the same reasons with the same excuses too, officially it is for other areas better government the spread of the corrects ideals etc, in practice its just resources.

Have you? So perhaps you can quote the exact words he used when he promised to invade Pakistan? "the presidential debates" is not a citation of any use for discussion.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/presidential.debate.transcript/

And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act and we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden; we will crush Al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority.

Not quite invading, but invading if they refuse to co-operate.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/presidential.debate.transcript/



Not quite invading, but invading if they refuse to co-operate.

Not really invading, more taking out our most wanted target if our ally refuses to.

Saying "Obama will invade Pakistan!" is greatly mischaraterizing his position, and I think even DK is smart enough to know it.

Not really invading, more taking out our most wanted target if our ally refuses to.

Saying "Obama will invade Pakistan!" is greatly mischaraterizing his position, and I think even DK is smart enough to know it.

Well define invading? What he is doing is violating national sovereignty with aggressive military action, I doubt Pakistan will just stand by and not do anything, so why isn't it invading? I'm not saying I have a particular problem with this policy btw.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/presidential.debate.transcript/



Not quite invading, but invading if they refuse to co-operate.

Potentially disturbing, but not a "promise to invade Pakistan."

Potentially disturbing, but not a "promise to invade Pakistan."

Not directly, however it could be argued that Pakistan will probably not co-operate to the extent that Obama wants them to.

Potentially disturbing, but not a "promise to invade Pakistan."

It is. He says they'll go in if Pakistan refuses to look for Osama. If that's not invading what is?

Regardless of what he meant, its dishonost to pretend that McCain or any other president would not do the same.

What?

This guy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski

Regardless of what he meant, its dishonost to pretend that McCain or any other president would not do the same.

Well I'm not saying that.

It is. He says they'll go in if Pakistan refuses to look for Osama. If that's not invading what is?

Do you know what a conditional statement is? It's also known sometimes as an "if/then" statement. For example, "If you attack me, then I will use lethal force against you." It's a logical statement - if the conditions of the first clause are true, then the second clause is too.

Leaving out or dismissing the conditionality of the statement is inaccurate. For example, the above statement doesn't mean "I will use lethal force against you." So it would be inaccurate, and a lie if you took me original conditional statement and then said "He's promised to SHOOT ME!!!!! ZOMG OHNOES!"

Similarly, it is inaccurate, and a lie for Hotwife to have taken the statement "if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act and we will take them out" to mean "He promised to INVADE PAKISTAN! ZOMG OHNOES!"

See?

Well I'm not saying that.

I know. It was more directed towards people like DK.


You know, the people who actually are dishonost.

Regardless of what he meant, its dishonost to pretend that McCain or any other president would not do the same.

I'm not pretending McCain won't. But lots of Obama supporters are hard of hearing, and believe that Obama will get us out of everywhere and bring peace.

Well, a drawdown to 50,000 in Iraq is his "withdrawal" (kind of like not pulling your dick out all the way when the woman says, "stop fucking me")

And increasing the troops in Afghanistan. He's already said that Pakistan is not cooperating - so has everyone else except Pakistan. He's promised to get Bin Laden (haven't they all) except that he says he's the one with the will to invade Pakistan - and the will to secure Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

Boy, that will take a lot more than the 20,000 additional troops the Pentagon has asked for in Afghanistna.

I'm tired of Obama supporters pretending that Obama is some kind of peace bringer. He's going to bring us more war.

I'm not pretending McCain won't. But lots of Obama supporters are hard of hearing, and believe that Obama will get us out of everywhere and bring peace.

Well, a drawdown to 50,000 in Iraq is his "withdrawal" (kind of like not pulling your dick out all the way when the woman says, "stop fucking me")

And increasing the troops in Afghanistan. He's already said that Pakistan is not cooperating - so has everyone else except Pakistan. He's promised to get Bin Laden (haven't they all) except that he says he's the one with the will to invade Pakistan - and the will to secure Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

Boy, that will take a lot more than the 20,000 additional troops the Pentagon has asked for in Afghanistna.

I'm tired of Obama supporters pretending that Obama is some kind of peace bringer. He's going to bring us more war.

But surely more war in Afghanistan and Pakistan is better than a new war in Iran?

But surely more war in Afghanistan and Pakistan is better than ......?

Er, no. Not in the slightest.

But surely more war in Afghanistan and Pakistan is better than a new war in Iran?

er, no

Er, no. Not in the slightest.

beat me to it.

the world perception of the US as a cowboy is something that people overseas tend to point out when the US wants to pick a leader.

despite the fact that a lot of them like Obama as well, there's a hard core inside him that is promising to invade Pakistan for more than just "get Bin Laden".

If you think invading Iraq was hard, try invading Pakistan while Iran is unfriendly to us - the whole region will become a war zone - and try to hold onto Afghanistan and try to keep Iraq stable while you're doing that.

It can't be done. Trying it is pure folly - if you want to see something "stupider than Bush" you're going to see it after Obama is elected.

beat me to it.

the world perception of the US as a cowboy is something that people overseas tend to point out when the US wants to pick a leader.

despite the fact that a lot of them like Obama as well, there's a hard core inside him that is promising to invade Pakistan for more than just "get Bin Laden".

If you think invading Iraq was hard, try invading Pakistan while Iran is unfriendly to us - the whole region will become a war zone - and try to hold onto Afghanistan and try to keep Iraq stable while you're doing that.

It can't be done. Trying it is pure folly.


I'm going to have a lie down.... I agree with this.

I'm going to have a lie down.... I agree with this.

I may like war, but I know there are practical limitations...

But surely more war in Afghanistan and Pakistan is better than a new war in Iran?
Considering that Pakistan has been spending more on its military over the last few years than Iran (who only just caught up) and is mountain-tabulous, no. Also there is nothing mutually exclusive about a war in Pakistan and Iran, although the practical implications of a war in four neighbouring and unfriendly countries are obvious.

Considering that Pakistan has been spending more on its military over the last few years than Iran (who only just caught up) and is mountain-tabulous, no. Also there is nothing mutually exclusive about a war in Pakistan and Iran, although the practical implications of a war in four neighbouring and unfriendly countries are obvious.

Don't forget the nuclear weapons...

didn't we attack Oman in 2003 or 2004 ?? nothing new really.
also Clinton launched missiles into Afghanistan to try and blow up Bin Laden.

I'm certain you have a source for this rather bold claim?

Nice visual pun, was it intentional?

Nice visual pun, was it intentional?

...no, and I just spent like a minute trying to figure out what the hell you were talking about.

Now that I see it though, I am stunned and amazed by my own, unintended brilliance. Thanks! :)

Don't forget the nuclear weapons...
Aye, but they can't use them, because they know that we will nuke their arses off as soon as this happens, unfortunately causing everyone to die as the Russians get panicky, as well as us Brits, the French and Chinese, not to mention the Indians.

Aye, but they can't use them, because they know that we will nuke their arses off as soon as this happens, unfortunately causing everyone to die as the Russians get panicky, as well as us Brits, the French and Chinese, not to mention the Indians.

Which of course results in this (http://www.endofworld.net/).