Obama wants to invade Pakistan?

[jStat 0]

I find is extraordinarily fascinating that little mister basher-of-all-that-is-Bush-and-Iraq is willing---nay, obliging---to send U.S. forces into Pakistan, in a unilateral military action, without permission from anyone, to go after people with histories of terrorist activities.

 

Doesn't that sound just a tad familiar? And wasn't there a giant cry of outrage from the people, both political and public, over such an action?

 

Hmmm.......

 

 

 

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politic...ewsbreaking-hed

 

 

 

 

 

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, under attack from a rival who portrays him as naive on foreign policy, declared Wednesday that he would use military force against Al Qaeda operatives hiding in tribal areas of Pakistan if that nation did not move more aggressively against them first.

 

The Illinois senator said he would take military action as president, if necessary, despite the risk of undercutting Pakistan's leader, President Pervez Musharraf, an important American ally.

 

"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama said. "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. ... If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."

 

 

 

Obama delivered the warning in a speech on counterterrorism policy at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, a think tank in Washington.

 

Obama outlined strong views on a foreign policy issue at a time when his chief rival in early presidential polling, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), has sought to depict him as naive in international affairs after Obama indicated he would be willing to negotiate with foreign dictators that the U.S. has shunned.

 

His declaration also followed revelations last month that the Bush administration made a last-minute decision in 2005 to abort a special forces raid to capture senior Al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan's tribal areas amid fears the operation might jeopardize relations with Pakistan. The disclosure stirred criticism of the White House, and in his speech Obama called the decision to abort "a terrible mistake."

 

A national intelligence assessment recently made public concluded that Al Qaeda is reconstituting itself in the remote region of Pakistan and gaining strength, including setting up training camps.

 

The Bush administration has followed a delicate strategy in Pakistan. The White House has prodded Musharraf, a key ally in the struggle against the Taliban, to take stronger steps against terrorist havens while also taking care not to undermine a leader who maintains a tenuous hold on power and faces an internal challenge from Islamic fundamentalists.

 

Events this summer have underscored Musharraf's shaky position. An attempt by the Pakistani president to dismiss the Supreme Court chief justice stirred violent riots and moved the court's full membership to overrule the president in a politically damaging rebuff. Islamic fundamentalists took control of the capital city's Red Mosque until they were ousted through a bloody military raid. That raid in turn prompted a series of suicide bombings against the Pakistani government.

 

Obama said he would make continued military aid to Pakistan conditional on a more aggressive Pakistani army offensive against Al Qaeda followers who have retreated to a region along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border in which local tribes operate virtually free of central government authority.

 

"I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan," Obama said.

 

White House defends strategy

 

White House spokesman Tony Snow defended the Bush administration's strategy in Pakistan. "We think that our approach to Pakistan is not only one that respects the sovereignty of Pakistan, but also is designed so that we are working in cooperation," Snow said.

 

"Gen. Musharraf, President Musharraf, is clearly somebody who has chips in the game here," added Snow, who noted that the Pakistani leader has been the target of multiple assassination attempts.

 

Still, in an action that many observers read as a tilt by the Bush administration toward a military strike, White House homeland security adviser Frances Townsend pointedly declined to rule out the option in a television interview in late July, stirring a chorus of protests in Pakistan.

 

Clinton said in a radio interview later in the day that she also would not hesitate to attack Al Qaeda targets on Pakistani territory.

 

"If we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured. And that will be my highest priority because they pose the highest threat to America," Clinton told American Urban Radio Networks.

 

But two of Obama's other Democratic rivals expressed skepticism at his pronouncements Wednesday. It's understood that the U.S. might have to go into Pakistan under some circumstances, said Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but that is not something to discuss publicly for fear of undermining Musharraf.

 

"The way to deal with it is not to announce it, it's to do it," Biden said at the National Press Club, suggesting Obama's comments reflected inexperience. "It's not something you talk about; as president, it's something I would do."

 

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), also a longtime member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, echoed the criticism.

 

Analyst: Blow to Musharraf

 

Teresita Schaffer, a former State Department official with responsibility for the region and now director of the South Asia program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that an overt U.S. military strike inside Pakistani territory would be a particular blow to Musharraf, who is a military leader, and could well lead to his ouster. It also would bolster leaders hostile to the United States in both the struggle for national leadership and local control of the tribal areas, she said.

 

"Once you have made that kind of operation, everything connected to the United States, even more than before, is believed to be the enemy," Schaffer said. "You've probably created a safe haven that works even better than before."

 

----------

[S12.308NSC 0]

how is this acceptable when Obama claims that Bush's "same action" isn't?

 

because it's not the same action.

 

Pakistan is where (according to our "intelligence") bin Laden and the majority of the Taliban/Al Quaeda leadership has gone. going into Pakistan - to chase down these criminals, not to depose their government and setup a new one - would be a continuation of our actions in Afghanistan to hunt down and punish those who were responsible for attacking us. a perfectly honorable and justifiable thing to do.

 

Iraq on the other hand, has done nothing but distract us and cause us to lose our rightful targets (not to mention billions of dollars and thousand of lives). there was no good reason to invade Iraq, no Taliban or Al Quaeda presence there (prior to the war at least - now that we've destabilized the region I hear there is plenty of both). Saddam Hussein was not a good person - but the fact is that he was a secular fascist, not a religious extremist, and permitted nobody to come into his country and usurp his power if he could help it. if you're one of those people who thinks that Iraq was responsible for or involved in 9/11 then you've listened to too many of Bush's poorly-written speeches and I'm afraid I can't help you.

 

 

by the way, I in no way support Obama or any Democrat for President, but no amount of neo-conservative propaganda/brainwashing can change the facts of history.

Edited August 13, 2007 by S12.308NSC

[jStat 0]

"if you're one of those people who thinks that Iraq was responsible for or involved in 9/11 then you've listened to too many of Bush's poorly-written speeches and I'm afraid I can't help you."

 

 

 

No, friend. But I am quite aware of the fact that he vowed to fight terrorism wherever it was and whatever face it wore.

 

Saddam was a terrorist; just not one of the 9/11 terrorists, but one just the same.

 

If you don't agree with that, then ask any one of the Kurds who are still alive that remember the genocide that Saddam delved in with---let's hear it---chemical weapons of mass destruction.

 

 

Still think that was part of a poorly-written Bush speech?

 

Look, I may not be a big of a fan of Bush as I was, say, four years ago, but for the most part, he and our Intel were correct about Saddam.

[mccumber1916 1]

shouldn't Iran be next... as they cought squirrels that they claim are israeli spies... and they want nukes

[MD_Willington 11]

Attack a nuclear armed Muslim majority country... your everyday, needs to get laid, wants to die for his religion, Pakistani would go ape shit, they would band together & over throw their own government and take what they wanted to use on the USA, doesn't the fool realize that?

 

bad idea...

[S12.308NSC 0]

I agree with you that Saddam was a tyrant and a terrorist of his own people. the question now becomes is it our responsiblity (or their own) to improve their situation.

 

i would emphatically say it is their own responsibility and i'll tell you why.

 

first of all, it is simply not possible for America to police the world and help every country. we're going broke right now just with Iraq. who would you suggest we clean up next? where does it end? it is simply impractical. like Dr. Ron Paul says, the best thing that we can do for the world is to set an example of Democracy and Freedom and TRADE with countries. look at what's happening in China, we've been trading with them and they've gotten a taste of the wealth and variety that is capitalism. just like what happened to Russia, soon another communist country will succumb to capitalism without war, simply through trade and the spread of ideas and freedom.

 

contrast that with what has happened in Iraq. we've had Iraq under economic embargoes for the last 25 or so years (ever since Saddam quit doing what we told him to) - no trade. these economic embargoes are counter-productive and stupid. they don't affect the wealthy government officials in power that we want them to affect, they just affect the masses of common people and make them less able to fight their oppressive governments. they stifle the spread of western culture, wealth, and ideas (like in cuba) and contribute to censoring tyranies. then we go into Iraq and topple their government for no real reason (again, why Iraq and why not Iran, N.Korea, Somalia, Tibet .. the list goes on and on) and get stuck in the middle of a giant mess of our own creating, costing billions of dollars, bankrupting our country, and costing thousands of lives.

 

can you imagine what we could have done with the billions and billions of dollars we've spent on Iraq right here in our own country? are we in such great shape here that we should support our government spending our tax dollars on such frivolous pursuits? i'm not. i'm sick of paying taxes and having the government waste them, paying for social security and medicare that i'll never see recieve. should we support our government borrowing billions of dollars from china and putting us in debt?

 

if you're sick of these things like i am - sick of the foreign policy that puts other countries before our own and wastes our tax money around the world instead of putting it to use on the populace that generated it - i suggest you check out ronpaul2008.com before it is too late. i believe these next 10 years are going to contain major changes and if the masses can't think and act intelligently now, everyone will regret it in the near future.

Edited August 14, 2007 by S12.308NSC

[mccumber1916 1]

do you work for ron paul?

an eloquent argument( yah i know y'all seem surprised i know the word "eloquent"

 

i agree almost all the way...

i think of the arabs in the same light as the persians in "300"

if they cannot asimilate a culture they want to wipe them out

and if they get the nukes from pakistan... or the nukes iran feels they need

 

god help us all

but the muslim's have sworn us to be their enemy... and wish us death

nevermind the fact that if they use them on israel... it'll end the same

israel will definately strike back in full force

 

on a separate note... i think the little countries surrounding china have only the security of nukes to keep china from walking right in

[MD_Willington 11]

on a separate note... i think the little countries surrounding china have only the security of nukes to keep china from walking right in

 

quite true..

[mccumber1916 1]

on a separate note... i think the little countries surrounding china have only the security of nukes to keep china from walking right in

 

quite true..

 

if they marche side by side... they could take the whole continent

we have it made ... they ain't got enough navy

[Gaddis 1,689]

can you imagine what we could have done with the billions and billions of dollars we've spent on Iraq right here in our own country? are we in such great shape here that we should support our government spending our tax dollars on such frivolous pursuits? i'm not. i'm sick of paying taxes and having the government waste them, paying for social security and medicare that i'll never see recieve. should we support our government borrowing billions of dollars from china and putting us in debt?

 

Why, would you rather have the money spent here taking care of perfecty healthy minorities, white trash, and illegals who refuse to go out and look for a honest job, but yet reproduce like truck stop roaches?

 

That's where any surplus woud go (especially with a Democrat at the helm).

 

I myself would at least like to get some bang for my (tax) buck.

[mccumber1916 1]

gaddis... i enjoy your blunt say it like it is demeanor

[S12.308NSC 0]

touche Gaddis. that's one of many reasons I don't vote for Democrats. unfortunately, the majority of "neo-conservative" Republicans these days aren't much better when it comes to spending and subsidizing special interests.

 

however, while an amount of that money would certainly be "wasted" on minority special interests, etc. - after all, spending $ that doesn't belong to it is what our gov't does best - some of those billions would be bound to go to education, the economy, and a variety of other things that would benefit every citizen. plus we wouldn't be in a multi-trillion dollar debt hole on top of it. I just don't see where our gov't gets off taking our tax dollars and spreading them all over the world. if I have excess money to donate to charity, I will.

 

no, McCumber, I don't work for Ron Paul. not in a paid position anyway. he's the only politician in the last 20 years that has got my hopes for the future up, so I try to raise awareness about him since the mainstream media won't.

usually he comes up by coincidence since he seems (IMO) to have realistic answers to most of the problems that people are talking about these days. actually, all his answers come right out of the Constitution, the most important document in our history and the one most of our politicians seem to have forgotten about. it's not just the 2nd Amendment that has suffered over the last few decades.

 

 

 

can you imagine what we could have done with the billions and billions of dollars we've spent on Iraq right here in our own country? are we in such great shape here that we should support our government spending our tax dollars on such frivolous pursuits? i'm not. i'm sick of paying taxes and having the government waste them, paying for social security and medicare that i'll never see recieve. should we support our government borrowing billions of dollars from china and putting us in debt?

 

Why, would you rather have the money spent here taking care of perfecty healthy minorities, white trash, and illegals who refuse to go out and look for a honest job, but yet reproduce like truck stop roaches?

 

That's where any surplus woud go (especially with a Democrat at the helm).

 

I myself would at least like to get some bang for my (tax) buck.

Edited August 15, 2007 by S12.308NSC

[Gaddis 1,689]

Yes, *I am* a non-PC dick.

 

BTW - did anybody in the tri-state area (NJ, PA, and NY (I think? )) catch that circle-jerk session on "It's your call with Lynn Doyle" (the one with that big mouthed (but kinda hot ) negress on it talking about how to reduce crime and gun violence in the inner cities (mostly referring to Camden, Newark, and the Philly inner city areas)? One of the top suggestions offered by the mostly black panel (besides Lynn Doyle, the "token" honky on the panel ) was (besides making owning a firearm by anyone a felony ) to offer "after school" ciricular activities to the black youth in the hopes that having something to do with their free time will keep them from selling drugs, robbing shit, and shooting each other in drug turf wars. Now my question is, is since we *CAN'T* seem to get fully 95% of the minority youth population into school on a daily basis to take their regular (taxpayer funded) class schedules, what makes these asshats think that these out of control street thugs will show up just to play a few games of touch football?

 

I was thinking about calling up and telling the panel that the only sure way to decrease the unwarranted inner city gun violence was to grease up the lynching noose and have a few bodies swaying from some of the trees lining Pennsylvania Avenue as an example to others. Somehow I was pretty sure I wasn't going to get through to offer my thoughts if the calls were being screened beforehand.

[mccumber1916 1]

go figure... white kids aren't invited

offer blonde white whores and they'd go

yah i know... it's just a sterotype

[Koliadko 207]

"if you're one of those people who thinks that Iraq was responsible for or involved in 9/11 then you've listened to too many of Bush's poorly-written speeches and I'm afraid I can't help you."

 

 

 

No, friend. But I am quite aware of the fact that he vowed to fight terrorism wherever it was and whatever face it wore.

 

Saddam was a terrorist; just not one of the 9/11 terrorists, but one just the same.

 

If you don't agree with that, then ask any one of the Kurds who are still alive that remember the genocide that Saddam delved in with---let's hear it---chemical weapons of mass destruction.

 

 

Still think that was part of a poorly-written Bush speech?

 

Look, I may not be a big of a fan of Bush as I was, say, four years ago, but for the most part, he and our Intel were correct about Saddam.

 

 

 

Not to mention he was one of the biggest financiers of terrorism. Lest we forget he paid Palestinians to blow up Jews. Last time I looked, that was terrorism.

[jStat 0]

go figure... white kids aren't invited

offer blonde white whores and they'd go

yah i know... it's just a sterotype

 

 

No, not really...