[wapo] U.S. strikes within Pakistan — without notice

Yeah the problem is he said it in the open. He also once said he wanted to ban all Chinese toy. This generated a huge backlash in China. Unfortunately, the Chinese backlash wasn't covered here, so no one really know about it. That's also why most Americans don't know why foreigners hate us.

 

Actually I believe some of the Cuban exiles in Florida should be gotten rid of. If there are terrorists in Florida, and the U.S. is protecting them, then it is within the right of Cuba to act. Though it is harder to determine self defense unless those in exile are still promising more attacks on Cuba. If they are, then yes they have the right to take out those terrorists.

I was in favor of military action in Afghanistan, and believe we had the right to act in our own self defense and go in there. I've always been in favor of going after Al-Qaeda and its leadership.

As far as Nicaragua, the U.S. did basically commit an act of war on that nation, and they would have been well within their right to retaliate. Nicaragua had not attacked the U.S. but we mined their harbors. If another nation mined the NY harbor, you better believe the U.S. would retaliate.

It's a position I've held since before I knew who Obama was.

 

that's the point, they don't this did, because pakistanis who like americans will and probably don't care about us attacking terrorists in remote mountains in their countries, and pakistanis who don't like americans will continue not to like us no matter what.

these are the questions you raise in actions like these. wire tapping, and torture are totally different issues.

 

I wonder if his clarification that he made shortly after the statement saying his comment was regarding only those with lead based paint was covered in China. It might have helped calm the backlash.

 

people in other countries who adore the US still would abhor the US attacking their nation. is that so hard to understand?

 

It probably helped a little bit but the damage is done. It is like you apologize after hurting someone. It's never going to be quite the same.

 

they actively campaign against cuba in the US. that also makes them traitors, not only terrorists right? do you really believe cuba has a right to do this?

 

No I don't. I mentioned it because you said you supported giving the President the threat of doing so to lend credibility to his negotiations. Maybe I'm wrong. I did support the initial rationale behind invading Afghanistan though. A nation was allowing terrorists who attacked the U.S. to roam within it's borders. Any time that happens and the nation won't deal with the terrorists, we should. It is a matter of self defense and it is within international law.

What Obama said sounded like common sense to me.

Pakistan isn't stable, but they aren't a majority fundamentalist nation either. Bhutto wasn't a suitable substitute either.

I think steps like this is a step in the direction of cutting Musharraf off. I do believe we should reconsider Pakistan as a major ally. I don't like supporting dictators, especially ineffective ones.

 

If they threaten to carry out more attacks, I would think Cuba was within their rights to send in a cover squad to take those guys out.

 

This thread is a trainwreck. And that's tabling the fact that President Obama wasn't shooting hellfire missiles into Pakistan The misinformation and level of assumptions are incredible.

It's amusing how many of you on either side of this issue pretend to be experts on the sovreign state of Pakistan - whoever that might consist of - and in particular the northwest frontier provinces where the pakistani army is fighting a civil war, including whatever wink and nudge or above-board arrangements the bush administration has with Pakistn's government - or whatever local arrangemnts the CIA/Air force has made w/military commanders in the region - to the extent that it can be even be called the legitimate government of pakistan. Hell - most Pakistanis don't pretend to know all of this.

So let's take this and sum it up:

The US (may or may not have) made an unlicensed or licensed incursion into a (vaguely defined/irrelevant in practice) border area of a country in which it has previously had license to conduct military operations that has been in a state of virtual anarchy, in particular in the (lawless no man's land) in which the (legitimate/illegitimate) government which is a (US Ally but sometimes not but who knows) and is fighting a civil war against the same insurgents that the US is accused of attacking.

yeah that is cut and dried against/for Obama.

 

I could care less about the Obama stuff in this thread, so I've skipped past most of it.

The two incidents in American History that would seem to be relevant here are the Barbary Wars and the hunt for Pancho Villa into Mexico. With the caveat that obviously both of those were on a larger scale, I would be interested to see what people think of those incidents relative to this.

Also, the truism is that 'it is easier to ask for forgivness than permission'. Would the dynamic be different if we had never asked in the first place, and just did it?

 

Whether that area is controlled by the Pakistan government or whether the Pakistan government is legit or not (well, some democrats will question the legitimacy of Bush Admin based n 2000 election result) is irrelevant. It is accepted internationally that the area in question is indeed part of the country that is called Pakistan. And also it is accepted internationally that Musharraf's government is legit. Any incursion into this area without the permission of Musharraf's government or a UN mandate violates the international law. What's so hard to understand?

[But then international laws have single authority to enforce them, so they are bound to be violated. The deterrent here is that the violating party will suffer from damage in its image.]

 

What's hard to understand is the following:

The US (may or may not have) made an unlicensed or licensed incursion into a (vaguely defined/irrelevant in practice) border area of a country in which it has previously had license to conduct military operations that has been in a state of virtual anarchy, in particular in the (lawless no man's land) in which the (legitimate/illegitimate) government which is a (US Ally but sometimes not but who knows) and is fighting a civil war against the same insurgents that the US is accused of attacking.

yeah that is cut and dried against/for Obama.

 

alright, just got back from lunch, standing behind D Wade at the chic fil a is always a surreal event

 

easier to understand if yah cut out the dem/repub bias.

we've got firm evidence that uncovers a shadowy enemy. as a matter of national security we're obligated to act.

using conventional methods of international diplomacy renders us impotent. sorry Pakistan, we won't do it again 'til next time.

 

well the discussion is based on the assumption that the we made an unlicensed incursion in an area that is unanimously understood to be inside the territory of pakistan.

obviously if there was approval than discussion is moot. obviously if there was no incursion than the discussion is moot. i don't see how that isn't cut and dry.

 

let me get this clear. your position is; don't pursue American enemies unless we can make nice with the hosting nation?

its a very polite diplomacy ... doomed to failure.

 

Again you sound more and more like the Neo-cons who will always argue that the use of US military is a good thing and will always state they are only going after terrorists.

Let me ask you. Did you support the Israel invasion of Lebanon in 2006 as that was going after terrorists? Would you support Turkey invading northern Iraq to go after terrorists?

 

I don't believe I said that anywhere in this thread.

As I said though what Obama said was pretty much acknowledged as the US had already carried out covert attacks in Pakistan. The problem though was understanding the delicateness of the US position in Pakistan and particular the guy who for better or worse has stuck his neck out to be an ally. While I think pretty much every politician privately acknowledges that we will attack targets in Pakistani terriroty and to a certain point Musharraf plays dumb its foolish to publicly state that.

The problem is that Pakistan is a country that can cause huge problems for us. Its also a country with nukes. AQ Khan largely at the behest of the US is under arrest yet Nawaz Sharif has said he would release AQ Khan and pretty much let him continue with nuclear proliferation. Again with as respectfully as possible I find your position very surprising as someone who has previously, and rightfully, taken the GW Bush admin. to task for potentially alienating people and for destabilizing other countries. You are essentially though defending a position where blunt US action and rhetoric will lead to what you have previously railed against.

 

I can't speak for Insane Man but what I am arguing is no matter what you actually do you don't publicly throw an ally under the bus.