| 0 |
Subject: Obama and Pakistan
Posted by: Jag
- [3064839] Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 12:59
For the most part, Liberals are harmless, most of their hairbrain ideas fall by the wayside, but with the strong opposition to the Iraq war, there is a growing chance, that one of these imbeciles could become President. While Liberals are general wrong on just about every point possible, the statements by Obama, concerning Pakistan, are more dangerous than normal Democrat
babble.
Iran is the chief financer of Shiite terrorism and the main disrupting force in Iraq. This is no secret and simple common sense would dictate, if the radical Iranian government were to fall, we would finally have a beginning to peace in the Middle East. I have not heard one Democrat state such an obvious fact. I would have to conclude from this, that Democrats are either all imbeciles, naive to dealing with the Middle East, placating their voters or a combination of the three. Mixing Pakistan technology with Iranian oil wealty would cause a global catastrophe. I honestly can not fathom a worse Middle East policy, this combined with the ridiculous plan to go after businesses to solve the immigration problem, tax increases, overregulations of industries and lax terrorism laws, there will not be one facet of American civilization able to avoid a spiral downward. |
| 1 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 13:09
|
ummm, maybe becuase your assumption re the fall of Irans government is not "a fact", but an assumption on your part. (and given your historic factual integrity...your 'assumptions' carry about as much weight as would that of the sworn testimony of a confirmed pathological liar.)
|
| 2 | biliruben
ID: 35112816
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 13:15
|
There are other ways besides conquest to achieve an end to the Mullahs.
Read this thread, started by a poster you might have occasion to agree with. Then I might entertain your membership into the moronosphere, and perhaps a reasoned discussion of the subject.
I will say this: before we bumbled, guns-a-blazin' into Iraq, I had a lot more hope for democracy in Iran than I do now.
|
| 3 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 13:24
|
Please remove Jag from the list I submitted for suggested fantasy football replacement managers.
|
| 4 | Jag
ID: 3064839
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 13:33
|
Can any of you deny Iran is the chief funder of Shiite side terrorism or that they are disrupting force in Iraq?
I can't believe this is even a topic for discussion, it so ludicrous. If you took 1000s of scholars familiar with the Middle East and tried to come up with the most destructive plan possible, I don't believe you could top Obama's idea. Same with immigration, you could not intententionally devise a plan that would hurt people the most, than the Democrat solution.
|
| 5 | Perm Dude
ID: 2472789
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 13:44
|
Obama talked about forcusing away from Iraq and toward getting the actual 9/11 terrorists in Pakistan. This is common sense. Do you deny this?
|
| 6 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 13:56
|
Sub-moron: While Liberals are general wrong on just about every point possible, the statements by Obama, concerning Pakistan, are more dangerous than normal Democrat
babble.
Sub-moron appears so appaled by Obama's endorsement of sending Americans to root out the people who are responsible for attacking us on 9/11 that I'm led to assume he's never heard anyone in a position of authority make such a suggestion.
Here's part of a September, 2006 interview that Sub-moron apparently missed:O'BRIEN: How far would the U.S. go to capture Osama bin Laden? In an exclusive interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, President Bush says he would order American troops into Pakistan to get bin Laden, despite opposition from Pakistan's government.
[begin video clip]
BLITZER: If you had good, actionable intelligence in Pakistan -- where they were -- would you give the order to kill them or capture them?
BUSH: Absolutely.
BLITZER: And go into Pakistan?
BUSH: Absolutely.
BLITZER: Even though the Pakistanis say that's their sovereign territory?
BUSH: Absolutely. We would -- we would take the action necessary to bring him to justice.
|
| 7 | walk
ID: 2530286
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 14:55
|
I guess that Bush sure is dangersous.
I think Obama just beat the hawks to the punch regarding Pakistan. Pakistan is not doing what they are supposed to be doing -- preventing the taliban and al quaida from re-grouping, hanging out, recruiting and training. They basically have turned a blind eye. At best, they are ineffective at combatting them. Obama just said what needed to be said in that if Pakistan continues to be lame, and we had good intel, we'd go in and send a strike force to take out senior al quaida leadership. He is not threatening the country of Pakistan with invasion or bombing. However, I like that Mitt had to say: "I think Barack is confusing our friends from our enemies." The spin now is that Obama wants to invade/attack Pakistan. No, he's saying that if we know where the bad guys are and they won't take them out, then we will. I dunno how nuts or crazy that is, but I'd like to think that we'd do that, without sending in thousands of forces. Special ops types deal. You see it in a Rambo flick, and you cheer your freakin conservative head off, Jag, so cut it out here.
|
| 8 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 15:14
|
You see it in a Rambo flick, and you cheer your freakin conservative head off, Jag,...
Well now....THAT actually explains quite a lot, right there.
|
| 9 | Jag
ID: 3064839
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 15:26
|
If you Democrat warmongers want to invade Pakistan, than so be it, but you should wait until we have dealt with Iran first. Why is so hard for you guys to understand that our best chance of weakening the terrorist threat overall is to cut off the funding. You can kill the leaders and the minions, but they will just find more. You cut off the funding and they will have to resort to tossing camel turds instead of grenades.
Mith- I don't care what Bush says. He knows he has to keep the Musharraf government propped up at any cost.
PD- No it is not worth going after the 9/11 terrorists if it destablizes the Pakistan government.
|
| 10 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 15:34
|
dealt with Iran first? shouldnt YOU wait, till we've dealt with Iraq first? wherein shrub perhaps should have waited, till we'd dealt with Afghanistan first?
|
| 11 | Perm Dude
ID: 2472789
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 15:47
|
We can best deal with Iran by following through on the Bush Doctrine of tracking down terrorists wherever they are, IMO. And leaving them alone for some time. There is a budding democracy movement that, if we move in there ourselves, we will crap all over.
As far as Pakistan, those critizing Obama's speech want it both ways, apparently. For them, Pakistan is too busy to deal with militant terrorists within their borders to deal with other militant terrorists within their borders. Again, the best way to deal with terrorists is by swift, competent action against them. Idiotic fighting in Iraq and talking about going into Iran are exactly the kinds of things al-Qaeda hope from us.
And people like Jag are playing right into their hands.
At their heart, al-Qaeda knows how to play them.
Dance, Jag, dance!
|
| 12 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 16:25
|
It's hard to believe someone could be so completely off base. It almost has to be intentional.
Just a couple days ago, Bush had to put his tail between his legs concerning Iran.
US President George W. Bush challenged Monday his ally Afghanistan President Hamid Karzi's contention that Iran played a positive role in his country, maintaining that Tehran was "not a force for good."
Karzai had raised eyebrows in an interview broadcast Sunday, describing US nemesis Iran as more friend than foe, and appeared to turn back US allegations that Iranian arms were helping to erode the security situation in Afghanistan.
Bush, asked about Karzai's statement during a joint press conference after their talks at his Camp David retreat, said the Afghan leader "knows best about what's taking place in his country."
How embarrassing is that? Our own puppet president in Afghanistan has to publicly school our president about the situation in that country.
There are a lot of complex elements in that part of the world. I seriously doubt you had any protestations when the CIA perpetrated a bombing raid into Pakistan last year, setting off nationwide protests against Musharaff.
Now, maybe you think Tom Tancredo, who thinks nuking Mecca and Medina is a good idea, would make a better president than Obama. That wouldn't suprise me in the least.
|
| 13 | walk
ID: 2530286
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 16:31
|
Right, the fight against terrorists is not against nations, but against the terrorists, per se, if we can find them and somehow surprise them...swift ops that take them by surprise. It aint conventional, and it aint easy, but it nuking Iran or mecca or the quagmire that is Iraq.
|
| 14 | Jag
ID: 3064839
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 18:26
|
I am not for evading Iran or Pakistan, unless Iran becomes close to developing a nuclear weapon, it is Obama and the Leftwingers on this thread that are suggesting evading Pakistan. Strong covert action is called for in the Middle East, but alas, the Democratic Congress and NYT would try to expose the plan for their own political agenda.
|
| 15 | Perm Dude
ID: 2472789
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 18:36
|
All right, this is a cheap shot, but the word you are looking for is "invade" not "evade." It only bothers me because the words are almost opposites.
As for the NYT and Democratic Congress, you'll have to take that up with Alternate Universe Baldwin, the specialist in fantasy political discussions.
My suggestion to you, on Obama, is to actually read his speech. You'll be surprised, I think that the Leftwinger President of ours had advocated the exact same position (which, of course, is much more nuanced that you believe).
pd
|
| 16 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 18:50
|
Who has advocated the invasion of Pakistan?
You specifically state that the leftwingers of this thread state as much.
Make like I'm from Missouri....SHOW ME.
|
| 17 | Jag
ID: 3064839
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 19:00
|
Obama talked about forcusing away from Iraq and toward getting the actual 9/11 terrorists in Pakistan. This is common sense. Do you deny this?
|
| 18 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 19:03
|
roflmfao you freaking imbecile. Now the "right" laments our going after the terrorists? No where in that sentence half-wit, no place in that post moron, no where in this thread....does anyone form the left advocate the "invasion of Pakistan". (It WAS however the "right", who advocated the invasion of Iraq. Remember that by any chance?)
|
| 19 | Perm Dude
ID: 2472789
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 19:10
|
You read what you want to read, Jag, that's for sure.
Let me spell it out for you, because you are either actually or acting stupid:
-We need to re-deploy troops into Afghanistan;
-We need to concentrate our intelligence efforts on tracking down Taliban who are passing in and out of Pakistan;
-We need to coordinate with Pakistan on the tracking of bin Laden;
-Once "actionable intelligence" is harvested (and it will, once we don't have the distraction of Iraq), we work with Pakistan on rooting out the terrorits;
-If Pakistan cannot or will not do it, we try to get permission to do so ourselves.
-Here's the part you are having difficulty with: At no point do we rule out not doing it ourselves. Why not? For the same reason the Congress doesn't rule out going to the Supreme Court over the many lies they are given: Because the fact that the option exists makes it more likely that an earlier step would be engaged.
It is like a union saying they will never strike. How much strength do you think they'll have at the bargaining table next time around? Management (like Pakistan) can just say "screw you" and they we are left sputtering and impotent. Ironically, just like the terrorists picture us.
So, you can either embolden the enemy by saying you aren't going to keep all options on the table, or you can refocus your attention to do what you have to do.
In your case you can either decide you agree with the Bush Doctrine or you don't (in this case Obama's speech matches, exactly, what Bush has said, so this isn't about Obama. This is about whether you agree with Bush or not).
|
| 20 | Baldwin
ID: 125312919
Thu, Aug 09, 2007, 00:58
|
Once "actionable intelligence" is harvested (and it will, once we don't have the distraction of Iraq),
What possible proof do you have for this statement beyond wishful thinking?
|
| 21 | Perm Dude
ID: 87299
Thu, Aug 09, 2007, 10:34
|
We have over 130,000 troops in Iraq, plus the associative planning, logistics, and support. The proof is in Afghanistan, where the Taliban have returned (taking over much of the southern part of the country). Do you think (really think) that if we weren't in Iraq that it would be a wash whether al-Qaeda and their supporters would be at the strength we have now?
It isn't wishful thinking, Baldwin. It is common sense. Isn't there something around the house you'd like to do, if only you had the time? And if you found the time and the energy and it was important, wouldn't you get it done?
|
| 22 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Thu, Aug 09, 2007, 11:25
|
this is an astonishing thread. For quite some time, those on the extreme right have accused the left of opposing something simple because GW Bush supports it.
now that popular opinion has really strayed away from Bush, the extreme right is opposing things that those on the left support, even if those on the right have spent the last half decade supporting such a thing themselves.
|
| 23 | Baldwin
ID: 125312919
Thu, Aug 09, 2007, 11:37
|
PD
The idea that as soon as America was no longer preoccupied with Iraq, actionable intelligence on OBL's location would magically appear is just ludicrous.
|
| 24 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, Aug 09, 2007, 11:39
|
Persuing PDs post...
No where do I see where he syas "magically". Nor, does he even imply that such would appear "immediately". What he does imply, is that by reassigning our assets to the primary goal, it greatly enhances our intel gathering capacity and thus the odds of "actionable intel" being derived.
All of this I know, requires thought beyond..its from the left, therefore its wrong, stupid and asinine....
Try it sometime Baldy...you may be surprised.
|
| 25 | Perm Dude
ID: 87299
Thu, Aug 09, 2007, 12:33
|
Baldwin: Your faithlessness in our ability to collect information when unencumbered by Iraq is heartening, though misplaced. As is your apparent belief that the terrorists would just lay low--why would you ever believe that the US would lack the ability to collect intelligence on a group dedicated to attacking us?
|
| 26 | Perm Dude
ID: 87299
Thu, Aug 09, 2007, 18:48
|
BTW, is there any question at all that if Bush had said the following: 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.
And Hilary Clinton responded with slamming Bush for not recognizing international borders, that Democrats as a whole would be attacked for being weak and helping the enemy with their lack of committment?
[BTW, anyone catch Hilary in the debate, saying:
that for Obama to talk about it is "a very big mistake to telegraph that and to destabilize the Musharraf regime, which is fighting for its life against the Islamist extremists who are in bed with al Qaeda and the Taliban. Remember, Pakistan has nuclear weapons. The last thing we want is to have al Qaeda-like followers in charge of Pakistan and having access to nuclear weapons." Didn't she take a certain State Department official to task for doing exactly what she is doing to Obama? Hmmm....]
It must feel strange for Republicans to get themselves so twisted that they have to take Hilary Clinton's position in order to continue their mindless attacks on Democrats.
|
| 27 | Jag
ID: 3064839
Thu, Aug 09, 2007, 21:31
|
Of those 2 statements, I agree with Clinton, but I am not sure if either means what they are saying.
|
| 28 | Baldwin
ID: 125312919
Thu, Aug 09, 2007, 22:51
|
PD
I nominate you to go infiltrate Waziristan. I'm sure you won't stick out and surely the natives will welcome you with open arms. Pack your bags for Langley. A weekend job maybe? Pack light.
|
| 29 | Perm Dude
ID: 87299
Thu, Aug 09, 2007, 23:13
|
Since your friends the Pakistanis won't do their job, it might just come down to me...
I'll send you the Clinton for President bumper sticker in the meantime, since you seem to be adopting her positions.
|
| 30 | walk
ID: 596182512
Fri, Aug 10, 2007, 13:51
|
So, if using intel to abate terrorist activities is un-doable, what's the alternatives? Invade Iraq? At the end of the day, we have to try the most efficient, least harmful method of preventing terrorist attacks. I'd assume we'd not enlist PD but one of our American soldiers who is of middle eastern descent so that he has the looks and feel for the culture. If not, then maybe a local in the Pakistani armed services. There have got to be some options, and I doubt we are not already doing this. At this stage, I think it's all about Obama, a Democrat coming out and saying the stuff the Republicans are used to saying, and because our politics have become hardened partisan, by definition, the republicans cannot agree. What's interesting is that Hillary disagrees...maybe more blurred lines will come about as a result of Obama's comments. I don't know what is right or wrong regarding strategy or tactics in attacking terrorists, but I do know that invading countries, bombing countries (which Cheney wants to do; bomb Iran...now) to punish them for allegedly aiding terrorists is misguided and has tremendous knock-on effects. Why not invade and bomb Saudia Arabia? 16 of 20 9/11 attackers were from SA? Many of the terrorists in Iraq fighting U.S. soldiers are from SA. Cos they are our ally. A strategic OIL partner. The plot thickens and becomes a little more uncomfy. Syriana...
|
| 31 | nerveclinic proxy
ID: 2077128
Sun, Aug 12, 2007, 09:07
|
Why is everyone so convinced we want to finish up Afghanistan and leave?
Afghanistan grows 90% of the worlds opium poppy that is used to make heroin.
Since the Taliban was over thrown when the US invaded heroin traffic from Afghanistan has increased dramatically.
The CIA has long been accused of being one of the world's biggest drug dealers...who has made the accusations???
Many former CIA agents.
They use the funds to increase black ops projects. These charges have been made by many ex agents over decades going back to before the Vietnam war and continuing through the Central American wars in the 80's.
Of course we are being told the Taliban are solely behind this huge output of poppy, but if it looks like a rat and smells like a rat.
I'm not going to bet the farm that we are in a big hurry to walk away from this cash crop.
Who needs oil?
|
| 32 | Boldwin
ID: 406201020
Sun, Jul 27, 2008, 05:58
|
Taliban/al qaida propaganda strategy rattling some cages.
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | |
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|