Pakistan

[Cypress]

I actually agree with that. It would be the same.... so lets play this out a bit further.... IF a country were able to effectively block oil from the US.... how do you think we would respond?

We placed sanctions on Iraq, they weren't attacking us because of it, they were boxed in, and you still wanted to invade them.

But, now you're saying it was FDRs fault that japan attaked us, because he cut off OUR oil supplies to them...oil they were jusing to wage war on OUR allies in asia?

As for drawing any moral equivalency between our oil embargo of Japan, and a ponteinal embargo of the United States, let me know when the United States invades south america, conqueres half of it, and subject the people there to rape, murder and genocide. Like the Japanese were doing to the koreans and chinese. If we acted like Imperial Japan, I wouldn't blame outher countries around the world for embargoing us.

 

[uscitizen]

Yes, that is a major reason. The point was that by todays standards of the left, FDR shouldn't have done anything. They were not a direct threat to the USA.

Umm what country is Pakistan invading ?

 

[Damocles]

I'm curious to know what makes you think we have any right to destroy their nukes or attack their country.

Interesting. You'd prefer the support of a dictatorship to simply dealing with a direct threat to our security then leaving the rest to them?

What "right" do you have to preserve your own life?

 

[Damocles]

Umm what country is Pakistan invading ?

Usually India in the Kashmir region.

 

[uscitizen]

Usually India in the Kashmir region.

Well now if India asks for help then.....

 

[Cypress]

Yes, that is a major reason. The point was that by todays standards of the left, FDR shouldn't have done anything. They were not a direct threat to the USA.

They didn't declare war on us, and attack us?

It was our fault they attacked us, because we wouldn't let them buy our oil -- oil they were using to commit war and genocide our our asian allies?

 

[Socrtease]

So, to be clear....

1) you did not read the article

2) you did not address the fact that it is the same group of terrorists that are hitting us in Afghanistan and then hiding in Pakistan

3) you ignore the part where I ask whether we should help IF ASKED

4) you just felt like another of your one liners since you are quite obviously incapable of giving this any thought.

Got ya... thanks, glad you are so open to discussion.

I have not read the article but I think I can adress number 2 without doing so. The terrorists that hide in Pakistan do so with a wink and a nod from the regional tribal leaders as well as the military leadership in that area. The Pakistani government is in the most unenviable position there is. The Islamists enjoy widespread support from LOTS of people in Pakistan. If the government looks too much like a puppet of the US government, it will be overthrown. At the same time Mushariff is no fan of Democracy which is what, so I have been told by our president, we are supporting in the middle east. Pakistan is a no win but at this point we have to support it because if we don't, and a serious islamist goverment takes over, Pakistan will be the jump off point for all islamist terrorist activity. This is why we should have put all our effort in the war on terror in Afghanistan. It would have been much harder but the returns would have been much greater. Islamists would have NEVER been allowed to use Iraq under Saddam as a training ground. Saddam hated Fundamentalist islam as much as he hated the Kurds and anything else that sought to wrestle control or power from his hand.

 

[Cancel7]

No dumbshit, that is not what I am saying. If you would bother to pull your head out of your ass you would see that the whole point of this was to try to figure out a way to solve this potential problem. To open it up for ideas and suggestions. To discuss the issue. But idiots like you want to turn this into another thread chant of "bush is evil" or "you must be a neo con" bullshit.

I asked you and others for ideas and potential solutions. In return you start your parrot routine.

So I ask you one last time.... HOW would YOU proceed? Is your solution to this simply to stand on the side and HOPE really really hard? If not, then WHAT would YOU suggest.

I'll tell you for the last time, it's out of our hands.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I'll tell you for the last time, it's out of our hands.

No it is not. We are fully capable of providing support to the Pakistani government. We are fully capable of doing nothing. We can also use diplomacy (I know, not a strong point for Bush). We can also try to put a UN face on this since we are not exactly liked by the Pakistani people. There are many things we can do to try to stop a bad thing from getting worse. It is a matter of choices. Clearly you want to toss your hands in the air and cry out "we can do nothing". But that is blatantly false and you know it.

 

[Cypress]

No it is not. We are fully capable of providing support to the Pakistani government. We are fully capable of doing nothing. We can also use diplomacy (I know, not a strong point for Bush). We can also try to put a UN face on this since we are not exactly liked by the Pakistani people. There are many things we can do to try to stop a bad thing from getting worse. It is a matter of choices. Clearly you want to toss your hands in the air and cry out "we can do nothing". But that is blatantly false and you know it.

SF, this is eerily reminiscent of the Bush voter's cry of "Well, what's the Democrat's Plan??!!!" with regard to the war in iraq. Your anger is palpalble when you don't get a response that you think is worthy, or that measures up to your standards. We've been here before. Democratic calls for withdrawing from iraq, were disimissed as cutting and running, warning to not invade iraq were dismissed as wimpy, and dangerously naive in the face of an "imminent threat". Assertions that we shouldn't actively interfere in pakistan are dismissed as "dumbass" responses.

Sometimes, there ARE no good choices. We can't "solve" everything for other countries. This is not a "dumbass" or lame assertion. Your buddy Ron Paul would tell you the same thing I'm telling you. Our policies in pakistan and throughout the middle east ARE the problem. Our support for dictators tends to make people hate us. Imagine that. There's nothing fundamentally we can do about it, unless we change the very foundation of our policies in the region. A paradigm shift if you will. At best, all we can do under the current circumstances is play some sort of lame ass, short term crisis managment mode. And even then, given that the man you voted for twice, George Bush, is at the helm, there's precious little he can do. No one believes him, no one respects him, he has no credibility, and he is veiwed as a hypocrite with all his disingenous blather about democracy and freedom on the march.

 

[uscitizen]

Yeah we should do something, after all we have done so well lately in ME situations...
Now if the UN does someting that as I said before is another issue.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

I actually agree with that. It would be the same.... so lets play this out a bit further.... IF a country were able to effectively block oil from the US.... how do you think we would respond?

In this particular instance, "we" becomes a very difficult concept.

Certainly the ruling elite -- and, yes, the concept is valid here -- would immediately start pushing for a military "solution." The thing is that a huge segment of the American public is dead set against prosecuting policy by military means at this point.

I think that some sort of military response would be almost inevitable. So too would the civil unrest and social upheaval. You think the late 60s and early 70s were unstable? That's nothing compared to what would happen in the wake of a war openly and demonstrably for imperialist ambitions -- which is what such a response would be, as was the Japanese response to our embargo in the 40s.

It might even be the end of the United States as we've known it. That's sort of an extreme case, but a plausible one I think.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

In this particular instance, "we" becomes a very difficult concept.

Certainly the ruling elite -- and, yes, the concept is valid here -- would immediately start pushing for a military "solution." The thing is that a huge segment of the American public is dead set against prosecuting policy by military means at this point.

I think that some sort of military response would be almost inevitable. So too would the civil unrest and social upheaval. You think the late 60s and early 70s were unstable? That's nothing compared to what would happen in the wake of a war openly and demonstrably for imperialist ambitions -- which is what such a response would be, as was the Japanese response to our embargo in the 40s.

It might even be the end of the United States as we've known it. That's sort of an extreme case, but a plausible one I think.

I agree. It would start with the elite, but when the oil embargo began to effect the average American, then like Japan in the early 40's, they would very likely begin seeking resolution through military means from our government.

 

[uscitizen]

Yep and that WILL happen in the not too distant future .....sigh....
Unless we can agressivly reduce our dependence on oil....

 

[OrnotBitwise]

I agree. It would start with the elite, but when the oil embargo began to effect the average American, then like Japan in the early 40's, they would very likely begin seeking resolution through military means from our government.

Some would, certainly. Probably a majority. But the U.S. will never again be as cohesive and monolithic -- pardon the cliche -- as even we were during the WWII era, let alone as homogeneous as Japan was in 1941.

The social upheaval would be enormous and violent.

 

[uscitizen]

Some would, certainly. Probably a majority. But the U.S. will never again be as cohesive and monolithic -- pardon the cliche -- as even we were during the WWII era, let alone as homogeneous as Japan was in 1941.

The social upheaval would be enormous and violent.

Yep people in an nngry mob are worse than stupit.
Gas stations would burn, Spinner would hide out somewhere....

 

[blackascoal]

How do I like it so far???

So far I think you are like all the other fucking parrots. Instead of reading the article and providing constructive ideas, you want to continue with the "bush is evil" chanting of the left. Fuck coming up with solutions.... lets just go with the " oh poor us, Bush is evil and no one likes us, so there is nothing we can do but sit by and watch this nightmare unfold". Fine, I get it. If anyone dares to start dialogue on the board, then they must be a neocon fucktard. Understood. You are not capable of thought beyond what moveon.crap tells you to think.

This coming from the idiot section that didn't have the brains to figure out that they were being played like a two-dollar whore by the administration on Iraq.

Now all of a sudden you're a genius.

You and your side of the asylum have being wrong about virtually everything thing you were just so damn sure about.

Played like for the fool ..

I'm still waiting to hear your suggestion about what should be done about Pakistan. What power do we wield over the Pakistani people to make them do our bidding?

You've wasted time whining about everyone's comments without offering a sane suggestion or thought.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

This coming from the idiot section that didn't have the brains to figure out that they were being played like a two-dollar whore by the administration on Iraq.

Now all of a sudden you're a genius.

You and your side of the asylum have being wrong about virtually everything thing you were just so damn sure about.

Played like for the fool ..

I'm still waiting to hear your suggestion about what should be done about Pakistan. What power do we wield over the Pakistani people to make them do our bidding?

You've wasted time whining about everyone's comments without offering a sane suggestion or thought.

Wow, another parrot. Assuming you know my positions on anything. I don't assume that anything from either party is the truth. But people like you seem to "know" what I thought or who I am based on what exactly?

If you would actually bother to read what I have written, I have tossed out several ideas that I was hoping would provoke discussion. Instead I ended up with a bunch of parrots chirping along to the "bush is evil" "you must be a neocon" crap.

But then you did say "sane" suggestion which implies that you too think the only sane response is to sit on the sideline. I assume you believe all of the following that I (or others) have suggested are "insane"....

1) Side with Musharraf and use this as an opportunity to go into Northern Pakistan and go after those that are hiding there.... most likely including Osama. If the people already do not like us, then that won't change.

2) Get the UN involved since the Pakistani people do not like us (according to so many of you) and thus would be more open to the UN ensuring the extremists do not get control of the nukes.

3) Try to find the location of the nukes and eliminate them, then pull back out

 

[blackascoal]

Interesting. You'd prefer the support of a dictatorship to simply dealing with a direct threat to our security then leaving the rest to them?

What "right" do you have to preserve your own life?

That is incredible.

If your thought had logic, why aren't we attacking China and Russia .. they have nukes and they don't like you. Since you think we should shit in our pants because other nations seek and acquire the same weapons we have .. why aren't you seeking to attack China.

Let me help you out .. proponents of macho-bluster only talk that shit when it comes to smaller nations. Sure, let's attack Grenada, Panama, Iraq, and we gotta do something about Pakistan's nukes .. but even you aren't suggesting doing a damn thing about China or Russia's nukes ..

I'm sure you can live with those ..

From the ONLY nation on the planet to ever use nuclear weapons .. twice .. comes FEAR of everything.

 

[Damocles]

That is incredible.

If your thought had logic, why aren't we attacking China and Russia .. they have nukes and they don't like you. Since you think we should shit in our pants because other nations seek and acquire the same weapons we have .. why aren't you seeking to attack China.

Let me help you out .. proponents of macho-bluster only talk that shit when it comes to smaller nations. Sure, let's attack Grenada, Panama, Iraq, and we gotta do something about Pakistan's nukes .. but even you aren't suggesting doing a damn thing about China or Russia's nukes ..

I'm sure you can live with those ..

From the ONLY nation on the planet to ever use nuclear weapons .. twice .. comes FEAR of everything.

They do not have a populace that has supported and made clear threats on the US, nor do they have a group that may take over that promotes such actions. Methinks the threat from those who would do something against us is a bit more than those who we just "dislike."

And if you read the thread you would know that I think the corresponding chaos would pretty much doom their nuke to inoperation as they must be constantly cared for or they do not work. It isn't like I didn't actually post that. I asked you a question. I got baseless rhetoric based on assumptions that could not be reasonably built upon the post you attempt to excoriate me over.

I know for a fact I posted that directly, without any equivocation, or secret evasion of mind. So, either read my opinions, or quit assuming them. Then actually answer the question rather than assuming the answer you get in your mind leads to my opinion.