You know? You gotta love this! really... In TJ world as long as something is not directly said or done by Jr he is not held accountable for what happens in his administration. It's amazing... It's that type of thinking that has America where it is today. No accountability by anyone in the administration for anything.
Private tj likely got his military info from decorated chickenhawk- General Limbaugh- "They have a 39 million-man army in Pakistan." http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_080107/content/01125108.guest.html Private tj's application for the coveted Purple Anal Cyst decoration is being reviewed as there is some dispute whether his carpal tunnel injury is due to his fearless keyboarding in the struggle against islamofascists and libpigs, or if the injury was caused by tireless wanking to terrorist golden shower p*rn.
VDH writes well http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjcwZmVkNzEyN2FiMGFkZjBjY2ZhMWY4YzAxN2EyNzk= [rquoter]General Obama [Victor Davis Hanson] Many have jumped all over Sen. Obama's suggestion that as Commander-in-Chief he might well cross the border, asked or not, into Pakistan, with beefed-up ground troops, to destroy the purported al-Qaeda sanctuaries. Apart from the notion that it would be as hard to distinguish civilians in a Waziristan from terrorists as it is in Iraq, which the senator has written off, other questions arise. As a US Senator why not now introduce an October 11, 2002-type resolution, authorizing such an invasion? Or why hasn't he in the past? Obama has criticized Sen. Clinton for her approval of that Iraqi authorization, but the sort of action he is envisioning involves crossing into a nuclear Islamic country, one bullet away from an Islamic republic, and surely should be a question for Congressional approval. Others have pointed out that his criticism of Musharref is contrasted by his willingness to parley with far worse in North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran. And what were his reactions to our prior Predator strike on al Qaeda notables inside Pakistan-approval, criticism, or mere silence? The administration should craft a careful reply, because Americans themselves are frustrated that an ally like Pakistan still harbors at least some of the murderers of 9/11. In this regard it is reminiscent of Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign critique of the first Bush administration's failure to stop the genocide in the Balkans. Never mind that Clinton himself, when in power, then waited years to act; all that mattered was that his campaign saber-rattling was not answered well by the Republicans and gave him a thin veneer of national security fides to his otherwise suspect candidacy. So, yes, Obama's suggestion is fraught with hypocrisy and poorly thought out and patently political and designed to touché Hillary, given her recent knocks that he was naive on national security. But his suggestion still must be countered logically and rationally since millions of Americans, as the senator's focus groups no doubt attest, are frustrated by this inaction as well, and the very notion that an aide beneficiary like Pakistan is harboring, willingly or not, leftover architects of 9/11. [/rquoter]
so this quy admits that iraq was a mistake? it sure can be countered logically, hey look at how we screwed up iraq, therefore vote republican again because we won't screw up pakistan
Why are you so scared of Pakistan? I can't believe you would let your fear of Pakistan and their army scare you out of getting the people who are responsible of 9/11 and wiping out their terrorist camps. First of all the fact that we are ready to go in there might be just the incentive Musharraf needs to actually take of the problem himself. If he didn't then we would take care of the problem, and I don't think Musharraf will do anything but speak angry words. We hold the cards, we are in the power position. If we cut off support for his govt. they are done for anyway, so that is why he won't do anything to us if we strike back at the leadership of Al-Qaeda. Thank goodness at least one of the candidates has more backbone than you do.
An Islamic republic won't be much if any more disastrous for the U.S. and the war against terror than Musharraf's govt. is. It's not a big loss, and it will certainly be offset if we destroy the training camps, get the leadership of Al-Qaeda plus uncover clues and evidence of other terrorists around the world and the inner workings of Al-Qaeda.
Trying to make it simple for the nay-sayers and those who cower from Pakistan. 1. Obama wants to go after the terrorists responsible for 9/11. - It has become a novel concept because 6 years after the incident the U.S. has taken its eye off the ball. We started going after them, and invading(full scale) a nation that harbored terrorists. Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, and Liberals were in favor of that idea then. Now another nation is allowing the exact same terrorists to operate terrorist camps and reside in its borders. Some no longer apparently have the backbone to go after those that are responsible for 9/11, including some of those that support the invasion and occupation of a nation that was not a home to terrorists, terrorist training camps, and had nothing to do with 9/11. 2. If we use military intervention in Pakistan it will be taken over by Muslim extremists is a myth. - Radical Muslims are a very small percentage of the political apparatus in Pakistan. If anyone took over, it is highly unlikely it would be radical Muslims. 3. Musharraf would somehow attack the U.S. if we went after terrorists inside Pakistan is also a myth. - They have a nuke, but are not capable of launching it at the U.S. Their army is not capable of taking on the might of the U.S. In addition Musharraf is depending on the U.S. and its support to keep him in power. If he loses that, chances are very high that he would lose power altogether. He won't risk it. The U.S. holds the power and the best hand in that game. The U.S. should call the shots. In fact, the credible threat of U.S. soldiers in the Pakistani borders could be what it takes to make Musharraf actually shut the terrorist training camps down, and actually apprehend the terrorists. 4. It would be horrible for the U.S. if Musharraf lost power is not necessarily true. - With him in power we have OBL, and Zawahiri running free in Pakistan, operating terrorist training camps, and planning future attacks. He refuses to give permission to U.S. forces to apprehend the terrorists and strike those camps. He refuses to shut them down and apprehend the terrorist leaders himself. If that is what we get with him in power, then not having him in power wouldn't be such a loss. 5. The idea that Pakistan would become another Iraq-style mess for the U.S. is a myth. - Obama is not adavocating taking Musharraf out and putting in a new govt. while the U.S. occupies a hostile nation. He has a clear cut mission, with an exit strategy. That alone is different than Iraq, and furthermore nothing in that strategy includes toppling one govt. and setting up a new govt. 6. Some people's stances on this make no sense. - Some people scoff at Obama's plan but support the Iraq war. So what they are saying is that it is ok to invade and occupy for more than 4 years a nation that was not harboring terrorists and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. But it is not OK to send troops into a nation that is harboring terrorist leaders responsible for the attacks on 9/11 and allowing them to operate terrorist training camps, for a limited and targeted strike at the very leaders who planned the 9/11 attacks. There are people on this very board who hold that position. 7. Some people have said that Obama's plan is naive, stupid, ridiculous, etc. - but have not really pointed out any reason why that hasn't been addressed in the above.
And Obama's plan is not to fight with a war against another country. It is to enter another country to go after the terrorists themselves. It has nothing to do with fighting a war against Pakistan.
That's exactly why his policy is being called naive. Come on, what does he think Pakistan is, his backyard? What kind of government would allow a foreign army roam and kill free in its territory? To help him understand better, how about an alien race sent an army into the USA to combat with their own criminals, would Obama sit back and take it in the a$$?
I do not think we will be successful without the cooperation of the Pakistani gov't. We need to think about fighting Al Qaeda on another front as well - and that's how do we stem the tide of Islamic Fundamentalism? I don't think an American attack on Pakistan would do much but to play into their hands. We have no idea where he is hiding, and it just seems so risky because we're now talking about total destabilzation of a region. Pakistan, Afganistan, Iraq, Iran, and Palestine? Are you kidding me? We can't do that, we have to get out of the region. We need to go nuclear power real quick, and lower our role in the region. We have to do this, because the longer we do not, the more we will simply drive funamentalism and extremism. Violating Pakistani borders would be disasterous in my opinion, and would just continue the idiocy of the Bush Adminstration.
And yet that's exactly what's been happening in Pakistan and would continue, though with a higher priority and better direction, under an Obama administration.
The Pakistani govt. would. They don't have a choice in the matter other than to clean up the terrorists themselves, which is a real possibility under Obama's plan. To help others understand better, if the Aliens had criminals in the U.S. they wouldn't be allowed to stay there unhindered and operate training camps and plan future attacks. The U.S. would get them out themselves. If for some reason they were unable to do it, they would welcome help from the Alien govt. Without U.S. support Musharraf's govt. will fail. Musharraf's military can not stand against the U.S. military even if he wanted to fight the U.S. Furthermore the troops wouldn't be roaming and killing free. They would be going after specific targets. Musharraf has an option that would keep the U.S. from striking inside his borders. That is to get rid of the terrorists and their training camps himself. If he doesn't the U.S. has every right to go after those that attacked it and killed 3,000 of its citizens.
That is the fault of opponents of Obama trying to spin it that way, and people who don't look with even the smallest amount of depth at what he is saying. If Obama had actionable intelligence then it would be shared with allies and everyone would see exactly why and what the purpose of the action would be.
Obama's speech talks about stemming that tide of Islamic fundamentalism that leads to terrorism. A brief reason for them to try and send an outcry about American aggression will die down fade away much faster than the training camps that are being allowed to operate freely inside Pakistan now. We are much better off with capturing Al-Qaeda's leaders, information, membership lists, plans and wiping out the terrorist training camps, even if there is a very brief or temporary period of "good publicity" for the terrorist cause. That good publicity may well be off-set by such a crushing blow anyway. Furthermore Obama has said he wouldn't go in unless he had actionable intelligence. That would mean that we would know exactly where the terrorists were. All of the other nations you listed are not the ones harboring the leadership of Al-Qaeda.
Obama hasn't got a clue, just G.W.Bush. Rule 1. Don't follow the path of a fool. The USA under Bush occupied Iraq for years and there's no end to terrorism in that region. Why do you guys think it works this time? Rule 2. Tackle organized crime the way you deal with organized crime. The occupation of a country means nothing in fighting against organized crime, which is the nature of terrorism. You guys have occupied the country of the USA for centuries, does that mean there is no organized crime in the US? No terrorists operating? No. Fighting crimes with war doesn't work. It only create more issues. Rule 3. The allowance of foreign army roam and kill free in a territory signals a loss of sovereignty. The Pakistan government doesn't sit there and take it like nothing happened. Even they can't fight the American army they still have to. That's their job. If they don't fight then somebody else will. Rule 4. Empty promises don't work. The Americans aren't in a position to guarantee "it's not roam and kill free, it's just against specific targets." Regardless of what you think, this line is getting old and the whole world doen't believe it anymore, not after the repetiton of the USA army destroying innocent civilian targets and torture surrendered soldiers. In fact, you would be full of yourself if you think hundreds of thousands of soldiers are all saints who don't roam and kill free once in while in action. The American army would, once in Pakistan, go to anywhere they please, and kill anyone they deem as a threat, that's roam and kill free. Rule 5. Don't play into the hands of the enemy. The terrorists would like you guys invade all the countries so every country in the world hate you. The more military operations abroad, the more innocent civilians casualty. Plz don't give me outdated examples like "we tamed Japan". That was against a country, not against a hidden, invisible organization. Also, what does Obama plan to do after initially taking down terrorists camps there? Retreat out of the country and let them regroup? Station army in Pakistan indefinitely? Take over the Pakistan government and install a puppet in charge? There is no good follow ups. You'll have your hands full to convince the world that stationing army there without permission is not a foreign invasion. The best choice is cooperation. Asking for the permission of the Pakistan government so that the USA can send special strike forces in alliance with Pakistan army to take out the camps, if it's true as you say holding all the cards, it can be done.
