Obama might send troops into Pakistan

[heartsurgeon]

Well, this is getting interesting.

Linky

 

[1EZduzit]

No link? More "out of context" partisian BS?

Surprise, surprise, surprise.

 

[Bowfinger]

That is interesting. Imagine, sending our anti-terrorism forces to where the terrorists are instead of where they are not. What a revolutionary idea!

:roll:

 

[yllus]

Sounds rather naive.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: yllus
Sounds rather naive.

Well I would hope he is saying that to appear more tough - but if he is...I guess a politician is always one. I would hope that before any "full scale invasion" occurs many other methods - including pakistani approved spec ops missions in tandem with trying to gain the trust of the locals in what their mission is - would be undertaken.

 

[Stunt]

The war on terror is NOT a military operation.
Eliminating terrorist threats involves good, accurate intelligence, collaboration with all nations including some borderline enemy states, eliminating funding and strategic elimination of key individuals.

I see what Obama is doing, he's trying to show he's tough on terror and isn't anti-military being a youthful anti-war candidate. This is the wrong way to go about it; he loses a lot of credibility for this dumb move.

Time to change campaign managers...

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Well, this is getting interesting.

Linky

Obama said that as commander in chief he would remove troops from Iraq and putting them "on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan." He said he would send at least two more brigades to Afghanistan and increase nonmilitary aid to the country by $1 billion.

He also said he would create a three-year, $5 billion program to share intelligence with allies worldwide to take out terrorist networks from Indonesia to Africa.

What's interesting about it?

It's not a false war for oil.

It's going into Pakistan to get real Terrists like Osama hiding in the Pakistan mountains.

What is interesting is resident Republicans against it.

 

[heartsurgeon]

No link? More "out of context" partisian BS?

another useful comment, from an esteemed member of the P&N village

 

[Bowfinger]

Since it appears some people aren't bothering to read the link, here are the first couple of paragraphs. I believe they address some of the speculation raised above:

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 and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.

"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."
[ ... ]

Not quite as irresponsible or naive as some may suggest.

 

[heartsurgeon]

What's interesting about it?

apparently it caught your interest. and for the record, i don't recall stating anything negative about Obama's comments. Yet, you feel compelled to prejudge me, and stereotype my feelings towards his comments...

i have feelings too...

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Stunt
The war on terror is NOT a military operation.
Eliminating terrorist threats involves good, accurate intelligence, collaboration with all nations including some borderline enemy states, eliminating funding and strategic elimination of key individuals. ...

QFT!

:thumbsup:

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Well, this is getting interesting.

Linky

Obama said that as commander in chief he would remove troops from Iraq and putting them "on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan." He said he would send at least two more brigades to Afghanistan and increase nonmilitary aid to the country by $1 billion.

He also said he would create a three-year, $5 billion program to share intelligence with allies worldwide to take out terrorist networks from Indonesia to Africa.

What's interesting about it?

It's not a false war for oil.

It's going into Pakistan to get real Terrists like Osama hiding in the Pakistan mountains.

What is interesting is resident Republicans against it.

Are you kidding me?!

If Bush proposed this, you'd be all over him within 2seconds of him mentioning it. You Dave are a partisan hack, you have no morals or principles, just blind and wholehearted support for your Democrat leaders. How sad...

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
What's interesting about it? ...

I already answered this. It is quite interesting that we may finally get a leader who actually does something to reduce terrorism instead of actively working to inflame it.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
That is interesting. Imagine, sending our anti-terrorism forces to where the terrorists are instead of where they are not. What a revolutionary idea!

:roll:

If Bush proposed this exact thing tomorrow, this board would be up in arms calling him an irresponsible idiot.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

No link? More "out of context" partisian BS?

another useful comment, from an esteemed member of the P&N village

Every village needs an idiot, thank you for being ours.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
That is interesting. Imagine, sending our anti-terrorism forces to where the terrorists are instead of where they are not. What a revolutionary idea!

:roll:

If Bush proposed this exact thing tomorrow, this board would be up in arms calling him an irresponsible idiot.

You believe that only because you are a die-hard partisan, incapable of separating perfectly valid criticisms of Bush's many failures and fsck-ups from criticism that is purely partisan. Most people here did NOT criticize Bush for going into Afghanistan. Indeed, many of us criticized him for dropping the ball in Afghanistan by diverting into Iraq. Many of us would support more action in Pakistan for the same reasons.

Pursuing terrorists where they are makes sense (at least when done in a rational and competent manner). Invading a nation where terrorists were not (i.e., had no material presence) was reckless, wrong, and counter-productive. You may not be able to distinguish between the two, but many of us are not so blinded by partisanship.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
What's interesting about it? ...

I already answered this. It is quite interesting that we may finally get a leader who actually does something to reduce terrorism instead of actively working to inflame it.

I think what we are seeing here is the classic partisan hackery these debates have fallen into. If Bush proposed invading a nuclear state with troops you'd be all over him as a moron for invading a soviergn nation who has nuclear capability and it would rile up the islamists.

There was one such thread a couple of weeks ago about special forces teams ready to invade Pakistan territory but called off at the last moment. If I had the care, I would dig it up and see what your reaction to that was.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

No link? More "out of context" partisian BS?

another useful comment, from an esteemed member of the P&N village

I guess your too dense to realize that when I posted you had no link.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
What's interesting about it? ...

I already answered this. It is quite interesting that we may finally get a leader who actually does something to reduce terrorism instead of actively working to inflame it.

I think what we are seeing here is the classic partisan hackery these debates have fallen into. If Bush proposed invading a nuclear state with troops you'd be all over him as a moron for invading a soviergn nation who has nuclear capability and it would rile up the islamists.

There was one such thread a couple of weeks ago about special forces teams ready to invade Pakistan territory but called off at the last moment. If I had the care, I would dig it up and see what your reaction to that was.

Fwiw, I think Obama's posturing on this is more Clinton-style 'say anything to get elected' stuff. I have no problem with SpecOps taking out targets quietly (I don't think Musharraf would either, but it's bad if publicized).

Anyone advocating a full-scale invasion, Republican or Democrat, is patently insane.

Better?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
What's interesting about it? ...

I already answered this. It is quite interesting that we may finally get a leader who actually does something to reduce terrorism instead of actively working to inflame it.

I think what we are seeing here is the classic partisan hackery these debates have fallen into. If Bush proposed invading a nuclear state with troops you'd be all over him as a moron for invading a soviergn nation who has nuclear capability and it would rile up the islamists.

There was one such thread a couple of weeks ago about special forces teams ready to invade Pakistan territory but called off at the last moment. If I had the care, I would dig it up and see what your reaction to that was.

You believe that only because you are a die-hard partisan, incapable of separating perfectly valid criticisms of Bush's many failures and fsck-ups from criticism that is purely partisan. Most people here did NOT criticize Bush for going into Afghanistan. Indeed, many of us criticized him for dropping the ball in Afghanistan by diverting into Iraq. Many of us would support more action in Pakistan for the same reasons.

Pursuing terrorists where they are makes sense (at least when done in a rational and competent manner). Invading a nation where terrorists were not (i.e., had no material presence) was reckless, wrong, and counter-productive. You may not be able to distinguish between the two, but many of us are not so blinded by partisanship.


PS. Obama didn't say anything about invading Pakistan. That's a red herring. And feel free to knock yourself out digging up my reaction in that other thread. I'm confident that if I posted in it at all, my position will be consistent with what I've said here. I said some two or three years ago that we needed to be more aggressive with Pakistan, but was immediately attacked by the YABAs for being stupid to even suggest such a thing. I am human, of course, so if I contradicted myself, call me on it.

 

[alchemize]

I think I've asked "so are you for invading Pakistan?" about 50 times on this forum, and the lefties either said "hell no withdraw iraq bushler impeach arghchs!!!!onewun11!", or they ignored the question. Now Obama is actually saying what would need to be done, I think it will be interesting to see the radical lefts response to this war-monger Obama.

I'm impressed with him saying this, it's increased my opinion of him some.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: alchemize
I think I've asked "so re you for invading Pakistan?" about 50 times on this forum, and the lefties either said "hell no withdraw iraq bushler impeach arghchs!!!!onewun11!", or they ignored the question. Now Obama is actually saying what would need to be done, I think it will be interesting to see the radical lefts response to this war-monger Obama.

ibid.

I'm impressed with him saying this, it's increased my opinion of him some.

Me too. He has a bright future if he stands by his principles and doesn't whore himself to special interests.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Well, this is getting interesting.

Linky

Obama said that as commander in chief he would remove troops from Iraq and putting them "on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan." He said he would send at least two more brigades to Afghanistan and increase nonmilitary aid to the country by $1 billion.

He also said he would create a three-year, $5 billion program to share intelligence with allies worldwide to take out terrorist networks from Indonesia to Africa.

What's interesting about it?

It's not a false war for oil.

It's going into Pakistan to get real Terrists like Osama hiding in the Pakistan mountains.

What is interesting is resident Republicans against it.

Are you kidding me?!

If Bush proposed this, you'd be all over him within 2seconds of him mentioning it. You Dave are a partisan hack, you have no morals or principles, just blind and wholehearted support for your Democrat leaders. How sad...

Oh please. Republican parroting does not suit you well from over the border.

If Bush ceased operations in Iraq and shifted to Pakistan to get Osama I most certainly would support that.

The key is ceasing the fasle war for oil in Iraq.

We have no business in there period.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

No link? More "out of context" partisian BS?

another useful comment, from an esteemed member of the P&N village

I guess your too dense to realize that when I posted you had no link.

I don't know, ain't very much more dense than someone making a stupid partisan comment when its obvious the link was missing

it gets even better when they are called on it.


married to or related to dave?

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

If Bush ceased operations in Iraq and shifted to Pakistan to get Osama I most certainly would support that.

The key is ceasing the fasle war for oil in Iraq.

We have no business in there period.

First, I seriously doubt it, you would just draw a new line in the sand and bitch about it.

Second, all actions in the Middle East are about Oil, but it certainly wasn't about securing it just for us as you like to imply, because only an idiot or partizan hack would believe it.


Third, wow, I found something to agree with you on. We don't belong there anymore.