Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Bush to invake Pakistan!Follow

#1 Sep 11 2008 at 4:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
OMG Bush said that he'd go after terrorist elements in Pakistan without Pakistanti permission if need be and that means we're going to INVADE A NUCLEAR POWER!!!!
NYT wrote:
President Bush secretly approved orders in July that for the first time allow American Special Operations forces to carry out ground assaults inside Pakistan without the prior approval of the Pakistani government, according to senior American officials.

The classified orders signal a watershed for the Bush administration after nearly seven years of trying to work with Pakistan to combat the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and after months of high-level stalemate about how to challenge the militants’ increasingly secure base in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

American officials say that they will notify Pakistan when they conduct limited ground attacks like the Special Operations raid last Wednesday in a Pakistani village near the Afghanistan border, but that they will not ask for its permission.
Back in Aug 2007, Totem wrote:
Granted, it hasn't been all roses in regards to our relationship with the Pakis, but to discuss sending troops in or unilaterally conducting military ops is just stupid. Why not go for the hat trick, Obama, and say we are gonna send troops in Iran as well just as soon as you get into office? Idiot.
Totem, will you agree on this day of rememberance that Bush is "just stupid" for this?


Huh. Timetable for Iraqi withdrawal, increased troop presence in Afghanistan, taking the initative in Pakistan... it'd be nice to have a president who thinks of these things a year in advance rather than one who thinks of them a year after the fact. Still, it's good to see the administration belatedly agree that Obama is the good idea guy.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2 Sep 11 2008 at 5:15 AM Rating: Good
I'm sure this news is going to go down extremely well in Pakistan. With a new and fragile government, a President with very little legitimacy and popular support, and a simmering discontent on the streets, this is going to ruffle a few feathers.

It's a tricky situation, though. I can't see any easy answers, but Pakistan is looking more and more like a ticking nuclear time-bomb.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#3 Sep 11 2008 at 5:26 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
Don't forget: Iraq was supposedly a nuclear power when we invaded them. This isn't our first trip into insanity.
#4 Sep 11 2008 at 5:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
This is a brilliant ploy. Bush instigates a war with Pakistan just in time to dump it into the next President's lap.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#6 Sep 11 2008 at 5:37 AM Rating: Excellent
knoxsouthy wrote:
Who gives a sh*t what the pakistanese think! The job of the president isn't to get along with other countries, it's to protect the US populace from foreign and domestic aggressors.


Yes, because the best way to protect yourself is clearly to **** off as many countries as possible.

Especially if they're Muslim, unstable, and armed with nukes.

I wonder why they didn't pick to be on the Presidential ticket. You're clearly stupid enough. Maybe it's the looks?
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#7 Sep 11 2008 at 5:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
knoxsouthy wrote:
On the contrary, Iraq was well on their way to becoming a nuclear power.
You spelled "Iran and N. Korea" wrong.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#8 Sep 11 2008 at 5:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
Is invakeing something like summoning it, or some sort of witchcraft chant?
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#10 Sep 11 2008 at 5:56 AM Rating: Good
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,143 posts
Quote:
pinko commy


Smiley: lol

Quote:
but any country that is controlled by muslims is unstable


Yes, because Indonesia is such an unstable country.
#11 Sep 11 2008 at 5:59 AM Rating: Excellent
In honour of our recently self-muted Smash:

knoxsouthy wrote:
I hate to break this to you but any country that is controlled by muslims is unstable.


False.

Quote:
It's up to us whether or not we allow them have nukes.


False.

Quote:
It's obvious you have absolutely zero understanding of arabic culture.


Hahahahahaha, false on so many levels even my testicules are smiling. I'll send you a pic.

Quote:
They look at promises of peace as a sign of weakness.


False.

Quote:
I know this may be difficult for a pinko commy such as yourself to understand, nevertheless it is a fact.


False.

Quote:
We havn't had another attack on US soil for one reason and one reason alone. The muslims know W is serious about this war, even if the liberal democrats aren't.


False.

Quote:
On a side note I hope the liberal propaganda machine is happy, they've convinced half the world that the US was really the perps of 911.


Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand, false.

Sucker.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#12 Sep 11 2008 at 6:00 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
knoxsouthy wrote:
Red,

Quote:
Especially if they're Muslim, unstable, and armed with nukes.


I hate to break this to you but any country that is controlled by muslims is unstable. It's up to us whether or not we allow them have nukes. It's obvious you have absolutely zero understanding of arabic culture. They look at promises of peace as a sign of weakness. I know this may be difficult for a pinko commy such as yourself to understand, nevertheless it is a fact.

We havn't had another attack on US soil for one reason and one reason alone. The muslims know W is serious about this war, even if the liberal democrats aren't.

On a side note I hope the liberal propaganda machine is happy, they've convinced half the world that the US was really the perps of 911.
Like Malaysia and Dubai? They are clearly unstable, and should be destroyed.Smiley: rolleyes
#13 Sep 11 2008 at 6:03 AM Rating: Good
***
3,909 posts
knoxsouthy wrote:
Who gives a sh*t what the pakistanese think! The job of the president isn't to get along with other countries, it's to protect the US populace from foreign and domestic aggressors.


Pakistanese?

Are you even trying anymore, man?
#14 Sep 11 2008 at 6:41 AM Rating: Good
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
I have a good friend whose dad is a Pakistani General. I should email her and if she's heard about any secret war. I'm sure he'll give me national secrets so I can tell allakhazam :P

Oh and by the by, wait to see if what happens we go to war in Pakistan, a country with a real infrastructure, unlike the cluster@#%^ we've had with broken and decimated countries like Afganistan and Iraq. It'll be awesome to see how much worse it really can get.

Edited, Sep 11th 2008 10:36am by Annabella
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#15 Sep 11 2008 at 8:44 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
Well, that's just dumb. Nice knowing all of you, good bye America.
#16 Sep 11 2008 at 8:44 AM Rating: Good
This won't result in a conventional war.

And if it somehow does, they'll nuke Iraq as I doubt they have the means to lob missiles over the ocean.

Problem solved, the Republican way no less!
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#17 Sep 11 2008 at 9:09 AM Rating: Default
*****
16,160 posts
Without conceding stupidity on Bush's part, I have to note two things:

1) Musharef (sp?) was overthrown. This upended our tacit agreement that we could prosecute the war across the Paki-Afgani border, an area where neither country was able to effectively fight the internal threat of the Taliban. The aid we sent mutually benefitted each of us, but now with a new government in contro-- and not necssarily on board --apparently the old rules are being re-examined. and, if no new agreement has been reached, but the old agreement was not rescinded, the old agreement may still be in effect. However, as a citizen with zero knowledge or experience in foreign relations (S'up, Black Neo?) I'd just have to...

/shrug

2) The use of SpecOps instead of drones may indicate we believe OBL or his deputy are imminently "grab-able." In other words, we may have intelligence that he was or is in the area and thus makesPakistan worth "invading" (if that's what you'd call it) to get him.

Does using SpecOps troops constitute an invasion? I can see where some people would argue that it is, but I think that is entirely debatable.

Totem
#18 Sep 11 2008 at 9:19 AM Rating: Decent
*****
16,160 posts
On the surface of it, I'd be inclined to say I was thinking specifically of a full scale invasion on the order of Iraq or Afganistan, but since I can't really remember what my state of mind was when I wrote that post, Jo, I'll concede the point to you, considering it would be my fault for not being more detailed in my response.

I can say definitively that it wouldn't make sense to hostily invade a country that is friendly to us and allowing us to conduct operations it wants to conduct but cannot on its' own due to any number of factors or reasons. So, in that sense, "invading" is an awfully strong word for what may be the norm in terms of an under-the-table agreement between our two countries.

Moreover, we may be acting as military proxies for the Afgan government, who has every right to defend itself against hostile actions of residents of Pakistan (the Taliban living over the border), but is too weak to conduct offensive actions on their own.

Again...

/shrug

Totem
#19 Sep 11 2008 at 9:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Totem wrote:
Does using SpecOps troops constitute an invasion? I can see where some people would argue that it is, but I think that is entirely debatable.
Which was my point throughout the Obama thread. He's talking about sending in a Special Ops force if we know exactly where a high value target is and Pakistan can't/won't act on it. People were expanding that into some ridiculous invasion scenario where we're marching on Islamabad.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#20 Sep 11 2008 at 9:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Dubai seems to be following the same plan that Japan did after WWII. Rather than try to assert military dominance, they'll settle for economic dominance. They're richer, their people are richer and don't have to work as much, and everyone is happy. Hell, they're increasing the land area of the country by moving mountains into the ocean and building up more beachfront property, because there wasn't enough room for the explosive growth.

From what I've heard, other than the occasional woman walking around in a hijab, it could be any big city in the US. (And actually you get that in some of the cities in the US anyway.)
#21REDACTED, Posted: Sep 11 2008 at 11:11 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Redpheonixxx as i dont agree with alot of what you quoted neither, you make your self just look like an *** by just replying false to everything without any counter statements. So please next time just STFU when considering replying like that. You just make people with your views look like retards.
#22 Sep 11 2008 at 11:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
Redpheonixxx as i dont agree with alot of what you quoted either you make your self just look like an *** by just replying false to everything without any counter statements. So please next time just STFU when considering replying like that. You just make people with your views look like retards.


I'm pretty sure he was going for a humorous Smash parody...
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#23REDACTED, Posted: Sep 11 2008 at 12:14 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) whatever that is...
#25 Sep 11 2008 at 12:35 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
Redpheonixxx as i dont agree with alot of what you quoted either you make your self just look like an *** by just replying false to everything without any counter statements. So please next time just STFU when considering replying like that. You just make people with your views look like retards.

I'm pretty sure he was going for a humorous Smash parody...

Actually, it was pretty spot on. I was thinking of doing something like that myself. varrus' understanding of muslim culture rivals gbaji's knowledge of politics.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 161 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (161)