NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090124/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan_37
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090124/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan_38
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/23/AR2009012301220.html?wprss=rss_nation

I guess this is what was meant by change we can believe in.

Now I know that terrorism has to be combatted, that's fine and important. And I know that sending a cruise missile to kill a bunch of badies clustered together is usually preferable to sending in ground forces and suffering casualties in a firefight. Thing is that we were promised "change" and right off the bat we're getting missile strikes on an ally in a region where our friends are few and far between.

MODEDIT: Added "Pakistan/US" to title to distinguish from other "change" threads.

The U.S. fires missiles into Pakistan????

*dies of shock*

One, Obama always promised that he would go after terrorists in Pakistan. Two, if he's firing on terrorists, I'm not sure how that counts as "missile strikes on an ally."

Now, if he did it without Pakistan's permission, or deliberately allowed civilian casualties, then that's bad. But I'm tired of people jumping at a chance to sarcastically say "I guess this is what was meant by change we can believe in." The line is really cliche, and its not getting any less so with repeated use. Are you one of the fools who apparently interperated change as "every single aspect of reality will be instantly different and better?" Did you expect the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan to instantly turn into holding hands and smiles all around? Jesus give Obama a week will you?

Incidentally, the Washington Post article seems to suggest that Pakistan's government may be cooperating with, or at least tolerating the strikes. But no, this is Obama firing on an ally.:rolleyes:

I think no matter who won the election, this would have happened.

I'm usually all for some good old-fashioned Democrat pain-and-suffering, I really am, but even I think this is getting kind of old. By this time next week, even B. Hussein Obama himself will be sick of hearing that phrase. God knows I am already.

I think no matter who won the election, this would have happened.
Yes, it probably would have. That's why we need to invest in new weapons technologies that will permit the safe elimination of targets without civilian casualties. Too bad Obama promised to cut funding for the development of new weapons while on the campaign trail. And yeah, he did pledge to go into Pakistan whether the government there was willing or not to accept the assistance. I can hardly wait for this blood-thirsty warmonger to get kicked out of office.

Yes, it probably would have. That's why we need to invest in new weapons technologies that will permit the safe elimination of targets without civilian casualties. Too bad Obama promised to cut funding for the development of new weapons while on the campaign trail. And yeah, he did pledge to go into Pakistan whether the government there was willing or not to accept the assistance. I can hardly wait for this blood-thirsty warmonger to get kicked out of office.

LOL you are going to be waiting a lone time.

Unless the missles were aimed specifically at Pervez Musharraf (the only person in Pakistan who likes us), and not at al Qaeda, then we didn't "fire on an enemy".

That being said, I do worry that he's jumped the gun here. It might be a bit early to expand operations.

I guess this is what was meant by change we can believe in.

Nah - that was indicating Christians are not to be considered the superior overlords of the USA.

Incidentally, the Washington Post article seems to suggest that Pakistan's government may be cooperating with, or at least tolerating the strikes. But no, this is Obama firing on an ally. :rolleyes:

This is pretty much the same idea that I've been getting from Time, as well. Although that article was from many months ago...

Thing is that we were promised "change" and right off the bat we're getting missile strikes on an ally in a region where our friends are few and far between.

Regardless of whether this was what he meant by change - and, if I remember correctly, he was criticized previously for saying he'd send missiles into Paistan if necessary but...

Pakistani leaders complain that stepped-up missile strikes — there have been more than 30 since August — fan anti-American sentiment and undermine the government's own efforts to counter Islamist militants.

It's part of an ongoing program that, since there's a new president, Pakistan are asking him to halt.

Yet again, setting him up for something he never promised and then attacking that as though you have the slightest point...

All you're doing is showing yourself to be ignorant, why not wait to attack him on something even reasonably substantial?

I guess with all the talk of hope and change I came to expect him to wave a magic wand and make money shoot out of my ass that smells like cinnamon and declare peace on our enemies.

I guess with all the talk of hope and change I came to expect him to wave a magic wand and make money shoot out of my ass that smells like cinnamon and declare peace on our enemies.

I'm sure you are aware that you are being unrealistic.

There has been a certain section of the population decrying Obama's failure to deliver.. since he won the election. Yes - months before he even was inaugerated, people have been complaining about him not making good.

Now, a couple of days into his actual Presidential period, he's already made good on... what, 6 promises?

He's going to be President for 4 years, at least, and I'm willing to allow him a little leeway on designing his OWN schedule.

This bleating about failing to change... is like complaining in January that you haven't gotten any Christmas presents yet this year.

Yes, it probably would have. That's why we need to invest in new weapons technologies that will permit the safe elimination of targets without civilian casualties. Too bad Obama promised to cut funding for the development of new weapons while on the campaign trail. And yeah, he did pledge to go into Pakistan whether the government there was willing or not to accept the assistance. I can hardly wait for this blood-thirsty warmonger to get kicked out of office.

:rolleyes:

First, where in those articles does it say their were civilian casualties? Seems to me that, in this case at least, the weapons were precise enough. Now if evidence to the contrary comes out, I'll gladly retract this, but in the meantime don't you think you're jumping the gun?

Al Quaida attacked America (unless you believe it was a conspiricy). Now, when a nation is attacked, it has a right to respond, so long as that response is not excessive. Of course, their is the issue of Pakistani sovereignty, but the article I read seemed to suggest that Pakistan was cooperating with or at least accepting these strikes. But I guess you saw fit to ignore that to
make your little rant.

Look, I'll gladly condemn American militarism, but "America fires a missile" does not automatically equal "American attacks an alley, violates their sovereignty, and massacres civilians."

:rolleyes:

First, where in those articles does it say their were civilian casualties? Seems to me that, in this case at least, the weapons were precise enough. Now if evidence to the contrary comes out, I'll gladly retract this, but in the meantime don't you think you're jumping the gun?

Al Quaida attacked America (unless you believe it was a conspiricy). Now, when a nation is attacked, it has a right to respond, so long as that response is not excessive. Of course, their is the issue of Pakistani sovereignty, but the article I read seemed to suggest that Pakistan was cooperating with or at least accepting these strikes. But I guess you saw fit to ignore that to
make your little rant.

Look, I'll gladly condemn American militarism, but "America fires a missile" does not automatically equal "American attacks an alley, violates their sovereignty, and massacres civilians."

It kind of is violating sovereignty - but there is mitigation - Pakistan is allowing it.

It's a diplomatic situation. If Obama instantly cuts off attacking Al Qaeda, his opponents will paint him as weak on terror. So - he's incentivised to stay doing some kind of surgical strike on terrorists for as long as it is diplomatically expedient. From the Pakistan point of view, they don't really WANT to have to domestic issue of fighting Islamic militants - so it's in their favour to rpesent a face of slight resistance to US incursion, whilst, at the same time, giving them tacit approval.

The diplomatic situation favours limited US strikes, that don't cut too deeply into Pakistan's sovereignty. The domestic situation in each nation supports the same basic model.

"Change" doesn't have to mean change-for-the-sake-of-change.

I quite like the fact that we are hurling missiles into Pakistan's border regions it makes a change from the other way round :)

It kind of is violating sovereignty - but there is mitigation - Pakistan is allowing it.
Except they're urging him to knock it off according the AP article.

If Obama instantly cuts off attacking Al Qaeda, his opponents will paint him as weak on terror.
So he's doing it for his political image. What kind of shallow and sadistic cock wad would indiscriminately kill people for sake of their image? How dare you try to justify the bombing of villages and the potential killing of innocent civilians?

Except they're urging him to knock it off according the AP article.

Nothing but PR and poppycock, I assure you.

Obama never promised to change this. He took flak for that.

Next!

Nothing but PR and poppycock, I assure you.
So when they urge Bush to step back it's a legit plea for understanding, help, etc. and Bush is a war criminal for it but when they urge Obama to step back it's just PR, a front, etc. and he's a good leader for staying the course?

Obama never promised to change this. He took flak for that.

Next!
I know, he said he'd be open to sending US troops into Pakistan (invasion of an ally).

So when they urge Bush to step back it's a legit plea for understanding, help, etc. and Bush is a war criminal for it but when they urge Obama to step back it's just PR, a front, etc. and he's a good leader for staying the course?

Where has anyone said that?


Double standards must be easy to find when you make them up.

So when they urge Bush to step back it's a legit plea for understanding, help, etc. and Bush is a war criminal for it but when they urge Obama to step back it's just PR, a front, etc. and he's a good leader for staying the course?

I haven't heard anything of this sort and, I assure you, I would be one of the first to challenge this notion if it were presented to me.

I haven't heard anything of this sort and, I assure you, I would be one of the first to challenge this notion if it were presented to me.

Except they're urging him to knock it off according the AP article.
Nothing but PR and poppycock, I assure you.
You said that Pakistan urging Obama to stop the missile attacks is poppycock and PR. No one would have said that of them asking Bush to halt the missile attacks except the most blind of neoconservatives. Also, many people have called Bush a war criminal for ordering operations that result in the slaying of non-combatants.

How does that contradict what Obama said he would do in Afghanistan?

And these casualties happened three days ago! Nobody changes major military strategies just three days after reported civilian deaths. Fuck it's going to take about a year to close GITMO.

How does that contradict what Obama said he would do in Afghanistan?
I didn't say that his actions contradict his statements, I'm saying that his approach to fighting terrorism is not really a departure from that of former president Bush.

We were promised change, damnit! Where is this change?

You said that Pakistan urging Obama to stop the missile attacks is poppycock and PR. No one would have said that of them asking Bush to halt the missile attacks except the most blind of neoconservatives.

And you know this how?

Teach me your powers of mind reading and foresight, oh wise one.

Also, many people have called Bush a war criminal for ordering operations that result in the slaying of non-combatants.

Thats not why we call him a war criminal. Good try though.

I didn't say that his actions contradict his statements, I'm saying that his approach to fighting terrorism is not really a departure from that of former president Bush.

Except for actually giving people trials and outlawing torturing, of course.

I didn't say that his actions contradict his statements, I'm saying that his approach to fighting terrorism is not really a departure from that of former president Bush.


It's been a few days, things like this take time, lots of time. Anyway, all he's really promised was an eventual departure from Iraq and more concentration in Afghanistan.

You said that Pakistan urging Obama to stop the missile attacks is poppycock and PR. No one would have said that of them asking Bush to halt the missile attacks except the most blind of neoconservatives.

Show me, then. I was skeptical about US operations in Pakistan until I read a Time article on the cooperative effort of the two to root out groups like the Taliban that are gripping the country.

I'm sure someone has, though, and I'd love to be proven wrong. Though I have an inkling such critics are talking more about operations in Iraq than in Pakistan and Afghanistan...

Let's see Indri, he's shutting down Guantanamo and getting out of Iraq. Quite a change in approach, I'd say. But I guess to you, change must be one hundred percent, immediately, or everything's exactly the same. :rolleyes: That kind of black and white thinking sounds more like the kind of idiocy I'd expect from a Bush supporter.

Your lack of subtlety is becoming rather... tiring.

I didn't say that his actions contradict his statements, I'm saying that his approach to fighting terrorism is not really a departure from that of former president Bush.

We were promised change, damnit! Where is this change?
Obama never promised change on this issue. He's always clearly stated that he supports T.W.A.T. and "American leadership" in fighting terrorist organisations.

More's the pity.

On another note, will Pakistan really help us find terrorists in the border regions? I mean, they're not even able to keep them policed for their own sake, let alone on behalf of another country.

-snip-
Only a Sith deals in aboslutes.

Your lack of subtlety is becoming rather... tiring.
It's called hyperbole. Gawd, Brainio, what is today, Casual-No-Brain Friday?

Only a Sith deals in aboslutes.
Oxymoron.

Lucas ain't a good source for philosophy.




Or sex scenes.

Oxymoron.

Lucas ain't a good source for philosophy.




Or sex scenes.

I DONT LIEK SAND ITS COARSE AND ROUGH AND IRITATNG AND IT GETS EV3RYWHERE

That man cannot write dialogue to save his life. For his own sake, let's hope he never has to.

Oxymoron.
That's the point.

Except they're urging him to knock it off according the AP article.


They're making all the right noises, certainly.

This is the negotiation phase. If the incursions into Pakistan stop, it will be because Pakistan wanted them to - the reason they've gone on so far - and are still going on - is that it is politically expedient for Pakistan's regime to be able to be seen to fight terror AND to remain strong in the eyes of their Muslim majority.


So he's doing it for his political image. What kind of shallow and sadistic cock wad would indiscriminately kill people for sake of their image? How dare you try to justify the bombing of villages and the potential killing of innocent civilians?

I'm not trying to justify anything. I would rather we pulled out of Pakistan. I was relating to you the political realities - not endorsing them.

I didn't say that his actions contradict his statements, I'm saying that his approach to fighting terrorism is not really a departure from that of former president Bush.

We were promised change, damnit! Where is this change?
Have you check between your sofa cushions? What about the pockets of old jeans and coats? And what about that wallet you stopped using, have you checked that?

Maybe by the time you're done looking in all those places, a reasonable amount of time will have elapsed for Obama to actually do something and there will be some results of Obama's actions. And then maybe, just maybe, you'd have something to bitch about that doesn't make you sound ridiculous.