Neo-Liberal Democrat Obama wants to send troops into nuclear Pakistan

TheDanold

TheDanold

Unimatrix
Wow Obama is off his rocker, even Bush isn't this dumb. Pakistan is nuclear and has 8 times the population of Afghanistan or Iraq, not to mention they are at least an ally to us (albeit a not very effective one).

"Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would possibly send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists, an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.

The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070801/ap_on_el_pr/obama_terrorism_7

I actually think Obama is probably right about Pakistan having some terrorists hiding there, but the country is somewhat of an ally, has a huge population and is NUCLEAR. Sorry it would be insane to invade them, Obama is nuts.
 
“Let me make this clear,” Obama said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. “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-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

I think that if any Presidential candidate were asked, if you had actionable intelligence of bin Laden's whereabouts in Pakistan (you remember him right Dano?) would you act on it? They'd all say yes. I suppose you believe that Rudy would say, oh no, I'd leave that up to a foreign leader. Right.

In fact, I expect that what to do about Pakistan is going to become an issue in the presidential race. And that's thanks to this adminstrations letting the mass-murderer of 3,000 Americans go free. If it were Bill Clinton, you guys would have hanged him. But bush got away with letting Bin laden get away with it.

All of that given, I do not agree with sending troops into Pakistan. And I'm fully aware of what's going to happen when Musharaff falls, and I'm not interested in helping that happen.
 
Darla said:
“Let me make this clear,” Obama said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. “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-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

I think that if any Presidential candidate were asked, if you had actionable intelligence of bin Laden's whereabouts in Pakistan (you remember him right Dano?) would you act on it? They'd all say yes. I suppose you believe that Rudy would say, oh no, I'd leave that up to a foreign leader. Right.

In fact, I expect that what to do about Pakistan is going to become an issue in the presidential race. And that's thanks to this adminstrations letting the mass-murderer of 3,000 Americans go free. If it were Bill Clinton, you guys would have hanged him. But bush got away with letting Bin laden get away with it.
Click to expand...
Um how did they let him go free? Osama and his posse were last spotted in Afghanistan in late 2001, over a year before the Iraq war (assuming the Iraq war drew resources from Afghanistan which is I assume your argument and completely false).

As for the other candidates they probably would hop on the lets get Osama in Pakistan bandwagon if they were pressed to say something. But Obama started this on his own without provocation.

Darla said:
All of that given, I do not agree with sending troops into Pakistan. And I'm fully aware of what's going to happen when Musharaff falls, and I'm not interested in helping that happen.
Click to expand...
Ditto, Musharraf may be a dictator, corrupt and not particularly gungho about catching Al-Qaida, but it sure as hell beats the alternative which would almost certainly be a hardline Islamic Republic.

To me you simply cannot attack a nuclear country, that goes beyond dangerous craziness - which is what Obama has shown himself to be.
 
So because the country has Nuclear capabilites, we should be pussies? Seriously, if someone commits an act of war against the United States, and a country harbors those people that commited the act, we should just tell that country "Can you pretty pretty pretty please help us and get these guys?"
 
How did they let him go free?

Osama Bin Laden is responsible for the deaths of 3,000 Americans.

Six years later, he is free. He got away with it.
 
DigitalDave said:
So because the country has Nuclear capabilites, we should be pussies? Seriously, if someone commits an act of war against the United States, and a country harbors those people that commited the act, we should just tell that country "Can you pretty pretty pretty please help us and get these guys?"
Click to expand...

Pakistan is a very sensitive and unique situation.

I am not necessarily against sending in a stealth, special forces team, to assassinate Bin Laden himself. But I fear it could be a slippery slope.

As far as actual US ground troops, I don't think it's even realistic.
 
Darla said:
Pakistan is a very sensitive and unique situation.

I am not necessarily against sending in a stealth, special forces team, to assassinate Bin Laden himself. But I fear it could be a slippery slope.

As far as actual US ground troops, I don't think it's even realistic.
Click to expand...

I agree with the above 100%. I also agree with Obama on his postion on Osama. We should go into Pakistan and eliminate the threat. But on the covert level. Somehow I think the Pakistani government would be conveniently looking the other way as they would most likely be happy to regain control of that region.
 
Onceler said:
As I recall, Bush even said OBL was irrelevant at one point...
Click to expand...

Yes, he did say that. And it's just laughable when you run into these right wingers who desperately try to pretend that doesn't matter, knowing full well all of the time that they would have consigned Bill Clinton to traitor status, tried him, and had him executed for the same thing. If they could, they would have.
 
Superfreak said:
I agree with the above 100%. I also agree with Obama on his postion on Osama. We should go into Pakistan and eliminate the threat. But on the covert level. Somehow I think the Pakistani government would be conveniently looking the other way as they would most likely be happy to regain control of that region.
Click to expand...

That's why I think it can be considered, covertly as you say. I believe we could get tacit approval from the Pakistani government.
 
TheDanold said:
Wow Obama is off his rocker, even Bush isn't this dumb. Pakistan is nuclear and has 8 times the population of Afghanistan or Iraq, not to mention they are at least an ally to us (albeit a not very effective one).

"Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would possibly send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists, an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.

The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070801/ap_on_el_pr/obama_terrorism_7

I actually think Obama is probably right about Pakistan having some terrorists hiding there, but the country is somewhat of an ally, has a huge population and is NUCLEAR. Sorry it would be insane to invade them, Obama is nuts.
Click to expand...
Quite a spin you have generated. HEH HEH. Now, how about trying to be realistic>
 
Darla... I will disagree with your "they let him go free" comment. While Osama is may still be free, I think it was more out of "now what do we do... the bastard is in Pakistan... shit.... fuck ... damn it... crap... whadda we do... whadda we do..." type indecision from Bush that has let him roam free.

Personally, given the complete lack of any evidence to the contrary, I think he died already. Either that or he is planning something really nasty and that is why we haven't heard from him in some time. All the more reason to covertly go in if we can pin point where he is.
 
"Darla... I will disagree with your "they let him go free" comment. While Osama is may still be free, I think it was more out of "now what do we do... the bastard is in Pakistan... shit.... fuck ... damn it... crap... whadda we do... whadda we do..." type indecision from Bush that has let him roam free.
"

That's not consistent with the military account of what happened at & after Tora Bora...
 
Darla said:
That's why I think it can be considered, covertly as you say. I believe we could get tacit approval from the Pakistani government.
Click to expand...

yep... because if anything went wrong, they could blame us, but they would not overtly stop us from trying. In my opinion.

I actually think many in the region of Waziristan would be happy to be rid of the bastards that are killing THEIR warlords and tribal leaders.
 
Superfreak said:
Darla... I will disagree with your "they let him go free" comment. While Osama is may still be free, I think it was more out of "now what do we do... the bastard is in Pakistan... shit.... fuck ... damn it... crap... whadda we do... whadda we do..." type indecision from Bush that has let him roam free.

Personally, given the complete lack of any evidence to the contrary, I think he died already. Either that or he is planning something really nasty and that is why we haven't heard from him in some time. All the more reason to covertly go in if we can pin point where he is.
Click to expand...

We had an opportunity to grab him post 9/11, and we did not. It was in afghanistan.

I doubt that he is dead. I don't understand why we can't get one man, and I firmly believe that if we really wanted to, we would. Even now.
 
Onceler said:
"Darla... I will disagree with your "they let him go free" comment. While Osama is may still be free, I think it was more out of "now what do we do... the bastard is in Pakistan... shit.... fuck ... damn it... crap... whadda we do... whadda we do..." type indecision from Bush that has let him roam free.
"

That's not consistent with the military account of what happened at & after Tora Bora...
Click to expand...

Let me clarify my comment. I was referring to how they handled Bin Laden after the Iraq war buildup began. Tora bora was early in 2002 if I recall correctly.
 
TheDanold said:
Um how did they let him go free? Osama and his posse were last spotted in Afghanistan in late 2001, over a year before the Iraq war (assuming the Iraq war drew resources from Afghanistan which is I assume your argument and completely false).

As for the other candidates they probably would hop on the lets get Osama in Pakistan bandwagon if they were pressed to say something. But Obama started this on his own without provocation.


Ditto, Musharraf may be a dictator, corrupt and not particularly gungho about catching Al-Qaida, but it sure as hell beats the alternative which would almost certainly be a hardline Islamic Republic.

To me you simply cannot attack a nuclear country, that goes beyond dangerous craziness - which is what Obama has shown himself to be.
Click to expand...
All this is simply reteric. Osama (the real one) will never be captured because he is long dead, but that will likely never be proven either. He is far more valuable as a flitting spirit. Any Osama that is captured or found will turn out to be a double.
 
Darla said:
We had an opportunity to grab him post 9/11, and we did not. It was in afghanistan.

I doubt that he is dead. I don't understand why we can't get one man, and I firmly believe that if we really wanted to, we would. Even now.
Click to expand...

Yes, in Tora Bora... in early 2002.

As I mentioned, I don't know if he is dead or not, obviously it is pure speculation. It just concerns me to a great degree that we have not heard from him. WHY is he so bloody quiet right now?

Bush may have thought him inconsequential, but he sure better be looking in that direction now.... because something is up. Again, pure speculation on my part... but the whole "its always quietest before the storm" is stuck in my head... :)
 
It's an unstable government as it is, even if Musharraf did allow American troops or presence in, once the populace found out they would seize control on their outrage and you would almost certainly have an Islamist hardline government in control and one that is nuclear and a probably ally to Al-Qaida, not to mention they could possibly use nuclear force themselves on US troops.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top