Obama Makes Another Threat

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Let's get things into perspective. Who is more evil. The taliban or you?

Three guesses, starting with Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, the Taliban and just for good measure, A.Q. Kahn, the Pakistani POS who spread nukes to North Korea, Iran, Lybia, Syria and who know where else. :shocked:

You have killed far more innocents in this so called war than the taliban did.

It wasn't for any lack of intent or effort on their part. :|

Why shouldn't we be mad?

You are mad. In fact, you're STARK RAVING BANANA CITY BONKERS! :roll:

 

[PokerGuy]

Yes, protecting the people responsible for 9-11 is perfectly fine :roll: Anyone or any country who harbors and protects those groups is fair game....

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Not utilizing the intelligence you have and conducting raids that kill civilians is the same as intentionally targeting them.

No, it isn't, but that's an easy game to play. Not going after terrorists in your own country when you know where they are makes you responsible for US raids in your country, so by your inaction, you killed them. See how easy that was?

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Let's get things into perspective. Who is more evil. The taliban or you? You have killed far more innocents in this so called war than the taliban did. Not utilizing the intelligence you have and conducting raids that kill civilians is the same as intentionally targeting them. The world needs to get rid of American imperialism before the taliban. America and NATO are nothing but oppressors. Why shouldn't we be mad? How mad were you when the taliban were killing off your civilians?

If that's your POV what do you expect from this conversation?

The American people needs to take care of their government. They are partly responsible for all these murders.

Believe it or not many American people can't wait for the current regime to leave office. After that hopefully our foreign policy will begin to improve - how much remains to be seen but I can't imagine how it can possibly get any worse.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: K1052
If you really want to defend your sovereignty how about you start with the terrorist organizations operating within your borders.

How about you start with the war criminals operating within your borders?

The "I know you are but what am I" defense is a little 4th grade don't you think?

You first need to clean up your borders before you start acting world police.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: K1052
If you really want to defend your sovereignty how about you start with the terrorist organizations operating within your borders.

How about you start with the war criminals operating within your borders?

The "I know you are but what am I" defense is a little 4th grade don't you think?

You first need to clean up your borders before you start acting world police.

What does that even mean?

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Dari
Give us bin Laden and we will stop the raids.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently you have not been reading the posts of palehorse and JOS who add any and all Taliban to the mix.

And maybe you missed the 60 Minutes re run of how Nato runs its rules of engagement. But to some extent, according to the story, an in advance assessment
of rather dubious intel is made, and up to 30 innocent civilians is permitted per bad guy killed, if the ratio exceeds 30 to 1, its not permitted.

And if we examine Vietnamese kill figure, some 2 million Vietnamese lost their lives
at an expense of 58,000 US troop deaths. Or a rough 35 to one.

In Iraq, the civilian death figures are less precise, but figure a rock bottom 150,000
to 4200 US troop deaths and you get an even more impressive 36 to one.

And in Afghanistan, the figures are even more vague as US troops deaths in Afghanistan exceed those in Iraq for the first time, but some 2700 total Afghans have lost their lives so far this year with innocent civilians pegged at least 300.

The real question is how many Afghans will now join the Taliban per innocent civilian killed, either as an active supporter or a mere look the other way rather than report Taliban movements to Nato or Afghan forces.

That ratio had better be damn small, because Nato troops are outnumbered by the
the Afghan population, 430 to 1.

And the timing for this questionable US incursion into Pakistan could not be worse, as a UN opens a probe into the last raid that is alleged to gave killed 70 children now opens. And at the same time the entire civilian government of Pakistan is now unified in opposition, I for one have to question the wisdom of risking so much for so few Taliban or Al Quida actually killed.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
In Iraq, the civilian death figures are less precise, but figure a rock bottom 150,000
to 4200 US troop deaths and you get an even more impressive 36 to one.

Excuse me, how many killed by the US? You ruin anything in your post when you do shit like attributing every civilian who tripped over a rock and died to the US killing them.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Let's get things into perspective. Who is more evil. The taliban or you? You have killed far more innocents in this so called war than the taliban did. Not utilizing the intelligence you have and conducting raids that kill civilians is the same as intentionally targeting them. The world needs to get rid of American imperialism before the taliban. America and NATO are nothing but oppressors. Why shouldn't we be mad? How mad were you when the taliban were killing off your civilians?

If that's your POV what do you expect from this conversation?

The American people needs to take care of their government. They are partly responsible for all these murders.

Sorry there skippy. Even the leftist is asked would by and large agree to a full scale assault across your western border to go hunting for Bin'i.

Pakistan has been a big pain in the ass. The right hand says "yes, we hate the terrorists and our country doesn't support them and we'll do everything we can to help" while the left opens the doors to the Hilton to Bin Laden, et al.

Even this article in the OP is ridiculous. "Oh, you can come six miles into the country to pursue terrorists, but you can only look! NO TOUCHY!" I mean, what does Pakistan expect when they grant permission for US forces to pursue militants into the country? A friendly game of tag? Tea with the local tribal leaders?

So, to the OP, why don't you get mad at your government who ALLOWED US soldiers into your country before you get mad at the US?

 

[Lemon law]

No, Pakistan from the get go said we will lend the US a supply route into Afghanistan, but no military action by the US is allowed on Pakistani soil.

And a Nato occupation on the cheap of only 72,000 Nato troops is not enough to secure even 15% of Afghanistan. Which is only part of the reason Nato has done worse, each and every year for 6 out of 6 years running.

I certainly would like to see both Al Quida and the Taliban defeated, but I oppose these tactics because its the surest way for the US and Nato to LOSE.

Not only has this been the results back feedback, its sheer stupidity and the surest way to lose the battle of hearts and minds of the entire world.

What part of that latter statement is hard to understand.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

You first need to clean up your borders before you start acting world police.

You first need to start opposing wrong from any source, yours AND ours, instead of pissing and moaning about the wrongs of one versus another.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Who 's opinion in the world should we care about that are sympathetic to the Taliban and AQ.

This may be a turning point where the Taliban will no longer be safe anywhere they run to hide.

Pakistan has been willing to play both sides against the middle for so long, that they do not even know what the middle is.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Let's get things into perspective. Who is more evil. The taliban or you?

When your idea of a solider is someone who hides behind women and children, you're damn straight innocents are going to die.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Who 's opinioni in the world should we care about that are sympathetic to the Taliban and AQ.

This may be a turning point where the Taliban will no longer be safe anywhere they run to hide.

Pakistan has been willing to play both sides against the middle for so long, that they do not even know what the middle is.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The flaw in the Common Courtesy argument is that Pakistan is obligated to submerge its self interests and adopt those of the USA.

It does not work that way anywhere in the world. Al Quida is an enemy of any civilized nation on Earth, and Pakistan has arrested more Al-Quida agents than the rest of the world combined. And Pakistan has lost more of its troops fighting Al Quida than Nato combined.

Pakistani Nato co operation is a two way street, and its stupid for the US to think it can impose its interests on a moral superiority basis. That argument flies in only the stupid segment of the USA. GWB&co has already put our moral superiority into a deeper toilet than Ronald Reagan.

I do not know about you my country right or wrong types, but I want to win for the sake of my own country and the sake of the rest of the world.

If you want to enlist in army of stupidity and ultimate defeat, you will not be the first or last to snatch losing out of the jaws of victory.

 

[SoundTheSurrender]

Terrorism is such a weightless word.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Who 's opinioni in the world should we care about that are sympathetic to the Taliban and AQ.

This may be a turning point where the Taliban will no longer be safe anywhere they run to hide.

Pakistan has been willing to play both sides against the middle for so long, that they do not even know what the middle is.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The flaw in the Common Courtesy argument is that Pakistan is obligated to submerge its self interests and adopt those of the USA.

It does not work that way anywhere in the world.

It works that way perfectly fine. Pakistan submerged itself into our interests when they took up the cause of the Taliban and AQ. We had acts of war committed against us, Afghanistan continues to have acts of war committed against it, and Pakistan continues to support these acts of war.

It has involved itself deeply into the core of our interests.

 

[Lemon law]

Pakistan may have flurted with the cause of the Taliban but I see zero evidence that they support Al Quida.

But to pretend we can defeat Al-Quida by military means has already been disproved by our own NIE. And when our own tactics aid the expansion of Al Quida, I have to respectfully disagree with you.

Deny it if you will, but that is the conclusion of our own NIE.

And given that latter FACT, I ask you and those like you to join me in figuring out smarter ways to win. Because no doubt about it, we are well on the road to losing just like we lost in Vietnam.

 

[ElFenix]

I believe we have a right to defend our sovereignty.

your writ doesn't run there, so i can't see how it's your sovereignty.

 

[JD50]

So what are you waiting for TGB? Retaliate already.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Pakistan may have flurted with the cause of the Taliban but I see zero evidence that they support Al Quida.

:shocked:

 

[yllus]

1. Demonstrate the ability to enforce security within your own borders.
2. Receive permission to whine.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Fern
IMO, you can either exert control over your country and border, or eventually somebody else will do it for you.

What he said.

Anyone who believes that there were "15 civilians killed" is a fucking idiot.

TGB, tell all of your Taliban and AQ friends that we're coming for them too...

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Dari
Give us bin Laden and we will stop the raids.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently you have not been reading the posts of palehorse and JOS who add any and all Taliban to the mix.

And maybe you missed the 60 Minutes re run of how Nato runs its rules of engagement. But to some extent, according to the story, an in advance assessment
of rather dubious intel is made, and up to 30 innocent civilians is permitted per bad guy killed, if the ratio exceeds 30 to 1, its not permitted.

And if we examine Vietnamese kill figure, some 2 million Vietnamese lost their lives
at an expense of 58,000 US troop deaths. Or a rough 35 to one.

In Iraq, the civilian death figures are less precise, but figure a rock bottom 150,000
to 4200 US troop deaths and you get an even more impressive 36 to one.

And in Afghanistan, the figures are even more vague as US troops deaths in Afghanistan exceed those in Iraq for the first time, but some 2700 total Afghans have lost their lives so far this year with innocent civilians pegged at least 300.

The real question is how many Afghans will now join the Taliban per innocent civilian killed, either as an active supporter or a mere look the other way rather than report Taliban movements to Nato or Afghan forces.

That ratio had better be damn small, because Nato troops are outnumbered by the
the Afghan population, 430 to 1.

And the timing for this questionable US incursion into Pakistan could not be worse, as a UN opens a probe into the last raid that is alleged to gave killed 70 children now opens. And at the same time the entire civilian government of Pakistan is now unified in opposition, I for one have to question the wisdom of risking so much for so few Taliban or Al Quida actually killed.

Look kids, the short bus has arrived!

 

[alchemize]

TheGreenBean, one of the rare P&N posters that can bring down almost universal* derision from "both sides".

With friends like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, who needs enemies?




*exception being cowardly know-it-alls who shall remane nameless

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Fern
IMO, you can either exert control over your country and border, or eventually somebody else will do it for you.

What he said.

Anyone who believes that there were "15 civilians killed" is a fucking idiot.

TGB, tell all of your Taliban and AQ friends that we're coming for them too...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
palehorse, that really the way to win, demonise and intimidate The Green Bean who is just one a a very few posters who gives us a clue on what the larger Pakistani attitudes are.

But in the larger grand scheme of things, few if any in Pakistan know who The Green Bean is, and even if you covert TGB to your position, it will do you no damn good.

Well lets see, you and Nato are outnumbered 430 to one in Afghanistan, go ahead, add the 165 million in Pakistan to the mix, and now you can be outnumbered only 2722 to one. Brilliant simply Brilliant strategy. A sure winner for Al Quida.