The US has essentially been doing its best to destabilize Pakistan and create a civil war in that country between the main part of the country and now what we see were rightfully called the "'tribal areas". This of course was needed to keep the Pastun on either side of the arbitrary line the British imperialists drew from helping their kinsmen over in Afghanistan as we launched what now looks like at least a 20 year occcupation. Obama is certainly no peace president, like Jimmy Carter who was our last president with a military background, and Obama is cowed by the generals, but he is not totally stupid. However, just let us get another Dubya, or anti-government GOP er bored with the details of domestic policies ,itching to be a "war president", and we can completely blow apart Pakistan and have an Afghanistan of 150 million or so people to amuse ourselves with. The 30 year olds on the bbs can start thinking of defending the homeland in Pakistan and/ or sending their kids to die there when they get to be 18. We can also spend additional tens of billions on security guards and scanners as we turn another 150 million people into potential terrorists as we send drones over to kill innocent bystanders along with folks who are actually fighting US soldiers in Pakistan territory. *********** Admiral Michael Mullen is in Pakistan this week with an eye toward improving ties with the Zardari government, a particularly important mission at a time when the two are increasingly at odds. The Pakistani government demanded last week that the US stop launching air strikes against their territory, and withdraw hundreds of CIA operatives. Which makes it surprising that early in his visit Admiral Mullen appeared on television and accused Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency of ties with terrorist groups, and that those ties have directly gotten US soldiers killed. The claim comes just one week after a high profile attack in Afghanistan’s Kunar Province, which President Hamid Karzai blamed on the Pakistani government. The Karzai government has regularly blamed the Pakistanis for violence in Afghanistan. Experts have been warning that the relationship between the US and Pakistan is nearing a breaking point, particularly in the wake of the Raymond Davis scandal. Mullen’s comments reflect that damage, but may also compound it, threatening a full break between the nations. http://news.antiwar.com/2011/04/20/mullen-accuses-pakistani-govt-of-terror-ties/
Gee, I wonder what kind of slant "antiwar.com" has?:grin: But, all kidding aside, I tend to agree with you on this one, glynch. We do need to reduce our police posture and concentrate on domestic concerns. The only bright side in Obama's election was his rhetoric that he would extricate us from our non-productive Mid-East entanglements. None of his promises were kept, and here we are kicking tar babies from Libya to Pakistan. The danger here is in "allowing" India and Pakistan to settle their differences between themselves. Then again, a nuclear exchange between the two might even sober the world a little regarding military expansion while reducing the world population, both green objectives.
I honestly don't believe the majority of our military action/intervention is dependent on who is in office. It is starting to seem like the war business will keep rolling, no matter who is behind the wheel... maybe with slight variation here and there, but we'll always find the wars... or manufacture them if need be.
What? And for what it's worth: Going AWOL from the Air Guard is still a military background of sorts.
HW Bush served in WW2 as a naval aviator and was awarded medals for his service. He flew a bomber that was shot down and was the sole survivor of the crash. It's not hard for me to believe though that Glynch is delusional enough that he really believes Carter is the greatest president of all time and the only one with military experience.
I'm not big into politics and tend to stay neutral, but it seems to me like all of those people who were saying Obama is this extreme, leftist, socialist guy who hates american and "pals around with terrorists" wasn't true at all. Obama is one of the most moderate centric presidents ever. I believe he is right in the middle, maybe even leaning right a bit on some major issues. It really makes me sick to think back about all the hate and lies that were told about him during the election. I'm a moderate guy myself and I like what he's doing.
Oh how can I forget Dubya's herosim and his cod piece on the carrier? Now Bush I, did serve at a relatively low rank for a few years. I even went to the Bush I memorial museum in college Station in which they touted his only accomplishments --being shot down in the Pacific and starting Iraq War I which has led to such good things. However, Carter was career military, a graduate of the Naval Academy, a commander of a nuclear sub. The generals and admirals hated him as ,he had a similar background and was not over impressed with their ribbons and carriage and knew when to call them on their bs.
Surprise, surprise, Glynch discredits HW Bush fighting in WW2 and being shot down in the course of a mission because he wasn't of a high enough rank for Glynch's liking. Despite all of his efforts to appear otherwise, Glynch is really just an elitist snob. Bush didn't have REAL military experience because of his "low rank."
hey glynch, like bush I, both of my grandfathers served in WWII - like bush I, they were both of a "relatively low rank" (sergeants). my grandpa martin (son of german immigrants btw) was shot in the gut while crossing the rhine on 3/24/45 and spent the next year in a hospital in england - he carried pieces of lead in his belly for the rest of his life. when he got out he went back to his hometown and became a butcher and firefighter. care to denigrate his service too? dont think im defending the bush's in any way - that entire family is a cancer upon the united states, from prescott all the way down - but the fact remains that ghwb served his country in a time of war and has more balls than you could ever hope to have.
Pakistan is both a integral part of our success in the GWOT and at the same time, a lost cause. Our plans are contingent on Pakistan, Pakistan isn't confident about or commitment, combine that with instability, and you get this colossal mess.
...so other then Reagan, and Bush I, and a brief sojourn and photo op by Bush II, Carter was the last military president . Rather surprised military service is that high on glynch's presidential qualifications checklist. I recall the big to-do when Clinton became pres and it was acknowledged that it was the end of an era of presidents necessarily having a military background and what that meant as his (or her -- one day) role as CIC. This thread has a fattyesque country singer vibe. Glynch's sideline erroneous comment taking over the theme. And as far as D&D derailments go...this one's been OK.
So getting shot down in combat doesn't qualify as military service? As far as Carter being a peace president while the brass weren't a fan his for things like giving back the Panama Canal and freezing military pay this is the president that did send troops into Iran to try to rescue hostages.
i hate to pile on but it is pretty ridiculous to disrespect Bush I service. particularly when you rail on the rich for not sending their kids to war, dude's dad was a senator.
I certainly bow to the elite Bush I whose father was a multi-millionaire and a prominent US Senator. I suppose you think Bush I was just a normal working sel fmade guy. Try googling Kennebunkeport to see his humble abode in Maine. I love it when little guy conservatives throw the elitism charge around-- especially in defense of their multi-millionaires conservative overlords.
Oh so Bush I was just a run of the mill GI whose dad was a senator. The point was that Bush I was not career military like Carter. I guess that it too fine a distinction for consrvatives and libertarians. Besides I thought you were a libertarian and therefore your economics were so very different from that of the traditional wealthy GOP'ers and would not get so upset at an attack on a GOP elitist like Bush I.
A minor point that misses the larger picture, but you are corrrect. A small rescue mission is not to be equated with an actual war. Would you agree?
