Lets Threaten to invade a nuclear quasi ally!Follow

Has anyone seen a response from the Republican candidates yet? So far, Madam Clinton said she agreed with Obama and Biden & Dodd both said that they wouldn't announce an attack (but rather "do it") but implicitly agreed with the notion of military stikes in Pakistan to take out high level terrorist targets -- unilaterally if needed.

Can't find anything from Guliani, McCain & the rest of them though.

it is all PR hype to get the masses of ignorant sheep (thats most of you) into thinking he has an idea, any idea, on how too get out of the mess this addministraition draged us into but at the same time not show himself as "weak".

it doesnt mean any more than the pre election crap about immigraition, gay rights, social security, homeland security, or any of the other crap the powers to be wanted you ignorant sheep to associate with thier puppet.

it is all sound bytes that their PR machine tells them large chunks of voting blocks associate themselves with to get you to deliver them to the mighty tax dollars....errr.....white house.

iraq bad, but im strong, dont like iraq mess, but will kill bad guys.

baaaaa baaaaa baaaa baaaama is our man, if he cant do it no one caaaaaaa. baaaaa

or havent you sheep figured that out yet?

he wont be any better or any worse than any of the other puppets they let you vote for. the only real differance between the parties is the dems draw the line at individual rights, while the repubs would sell YOUR soul for corperate profit.

other than that, all you get to vote for really is which pack of wolves gets to rip into our tax dollars. EVERYTHING else is just voting block PR sound bytes that will never see the light of day unless there is some way to make money from it. for instance the awarding of airport security to a for profit contractor untill public outcry ended it. 9-11? means nothing to them other than making sure you sheep are still on THEIR train.

they probably know osama is in packistan. but there is no financial motivation to go after him, thus he is "lost". there was no financial motivation to go into afganistan, and thus, a token show of force to keep you sheep on THEIR train. ray charles can see why we are in iraq.

welcome to the money....err...moral majority.

What about it? If you want me to say that we should have issued a formal apology to those killed (or their families), sure. If you want me to say that we shouldn't ever strike targets if there's a chance of civilian deaths... well, no. That's a risk you need to consider but it's hardly the only consideration.

For those who continue to say how weak Musharraf is, is allowing Al'Qaeda to grow and prosper in Pakistan really the best response? "Well, we can't try to root out the anti-western Islamic fanatics growing in power because then the anti-western Islamic fanatics might grow in power..."

There's no argument that Al'Qaeda has been growing in power in Pakistan, largely in the tribal areas that Musharraf is unwilling to touch. And I'm not saying to send an armored column towards Islamabad or something. But, *if* Musharraf is unwilling or unable to assist in handling this issue, either by himself or with US aid in the form of equipment, soldiers, whatever then the remaining choices are to take action ourselves when a high value target is available or to simply allow the training camps to thrive. Obama is advocating the former, after Musharraf proves unwilling to deal with the issue.

Edited, Aug 2nd 2007 9:19am by Jophiel

II was just pointing out that exactly what Obama is proposing on a large scale has already been done by Bush on a small scale, at least twice; and that many in the international community and on the left in USA, heavily criticized Bush for doing so. It seemed ironic that now that Obama has an "original" idea to do what Bush has already done with a lot of diplomatic repercussions, many are now forgetting how those repercussions made it a gutsy, but poor choice by Bush.

Having read Obama's comments, I cannot agree that he has occupation in mind.

I think he has the following in mind: acting against terrorists if the government won't (or can't).

Occupying Pakistan would be a colossally bad idea.

As I'm sure we all have found out at this point, fighting terrorism is a law enforcement activity. Working together with every local law enforcement agency you can is the only way to go. However little credibility the (legitimate) local law enforcement agency has, we will have 10 times less.

Occupying nations creates more terrorists.

Like crime, terrorism (which of course is a crime, among other things) will never be eliminated. It is a method. It has been used since Biblical times.

There is a trade off between the rate of crime and privacy. The people of every nation need to decide where to draw the line. (I, personally, would choose privacy - as I think 90% or more of Americans would).

Incidentally, if you haven't read his entire speech (PDF), it's worth reading (in my biased opinion). Here's the entire section directly about Pakistan:

Yeah, yeah, yeah... just read it for the words, ya know?

Yes, Jophiel, to be clear it'd be the height of foolishness to nuke Iran. ****, if we're gonna go that route then we should go whole hog and glass over the entire Middle East and solve that problem once and for all.

Look, as it is we are having trouble finishing what we started in Iraq and Afganistan, much less to pile on more on our plate by including Pakistan or Iran.

Let the Pakis do what they are doing in regards to military operations (both internal & US spec ops) and keep the pressure on not to give the Taliban any more of a foothold they already have in that backwater part of the world.

Totem

Absolutely. Idiocy knows no party lines, race, class, or gender. Wouldn't you agree?

Totem

Totem for prez!
Im not being sarcastic, and btw, what good are those millions spent on nukes if they dont get used?
Lets just get it over with the fundamentalist medieval crapstics, would be a nice change of pace at least.

People dont live in oil fields, nuke caaarefully.
If you get the majority of the population the T-R ists dont have supplies and anything to fight for anyway!

Edited, Aug 3rd 2007 5:24pm by Sjans

Oh I dunno, Global warming + nuclear winter = ideal climate for all!

i think there are two very fundamental realities in the middle east that most americans dont seem to fully understand.

1. the powers that be are barley hanging on to that power by a thread. pakistan is walking a tight rope between a strict muslim ideology, which over half of the country wants, and a push toward moderation, which is the side we support. their president wouldnt be in power today if it wasnt for our support or interferance depending on how you look at it. same with abbas in gaza, and the puppet government in lebonon.

they all have to be very carefull about what they do or what they say or they would be dead tomarrow. in pakistan for instance, there are parts of the coutry their government military would not go. if they did, they would be killed outright, or forced into a fierce battle where the government would be killing its own people and probably be plunged into a civil war. these are the parts where muslim clerics still have more controll over the majority of the population there than the government.

it is not that they dont want to rid these areas of the radical islamic extremist, they are as much of a threat to their own government as they are to us, but they cant. if they try, it could launch their entire country into a civil war the moderates currently in power would probably lose. and not because of equipment, but because just like lebonon, surrounding countries who do support radical islam would be constantly throwing resources against their fragile government and it WOULD end up just like iraq. a never ending war where every one lives in constant war.

we are asking them to tear their own country apart to help us with OUR problem. that is why there has been no action on their part, AND why their government could never openly support letting us do it ourselves.

2. the vast majority of the people in the middle east are predominatly muslim. and i dont mean like we are christans, where we go to church one a week for hell fire insurance. they prey 5 times a day. they live by it, they die by it. even if they are unwilling to participate in open hostilities themselves, they will root and cheer for what they percieve as heros who do. and im not talking about the people in iraq alone. im talking about the people all over the middle east.

UNTILL we can change the mindset of the masses of PEOPLE in those countries, or untill they become more moderate over time like the christains did, you could kill every leader and cleric in the middle east today, and by tomarrow you wouldnt notice any differance in the hostilities or their capabilities. unlike germany and japan, it is not the leaders that pull the population along, it is the people who push a leader before them. kill him and another will pop up like he was never gone. in a sence, they are a true democracy. their leaders give them what they want and tell them what they want to hear or.....they die.

no war in the middle east can ever be won untill we win the hearts and minds of the people there. EVER. and no christain army will ever be able to force that upon them untill they are ready to let it happen. untill the PEOPLE are willing to accept it.

and any government, even their own, who tries to force it upon their own people, like abbas tried, will be met with open hostility and war. the president in pakistan KNOWS coming down on the islamic extremist in hiw own country would mean his deat and the destruction of his government and probably civil war for his country. supporting us doing it would result in the same.

so ANY american leader spitting out threats for them to do so is....ignorant. that includes obama AND bush. not gona happen. not in this lifetime.

and why should they? why should they tear THEIR country apart and order THEIR troops to shoot THEIR own people for....our stupid mess?

i wouldnt do it either in his shoes.

it is just pr hype for votes by politicians singing songs to ignorant sheep who dont know any better. you.