PDA

View Full Version : Obama will invade the Northwestern Territory of Pakistan...If he is not stopped


SilentScope001
04-06-2008, 03:53 PM
I am getting more and more upset about Obama, and as a Republican/Democrat, I am getting more paranoid that Obama will lead us into problems...

He has stated repeately that he will bomb the Northwestern Territory/Northwest Frontier (a 'province' in Pakistan), that he would send troops over there if needed, if Osama bin Laden or Al-Qadiah is there...even without the premission of the Pakistani government. He has not retracted this, even when other people condemned him. It is true that America is sending in military advisors...but those advisors came because Pakistan want them to come. It is true that America is secretly bombing the Northwestern Territory, but that's the thing, it's secret, America doesn't want to confirm it is happening because of the consquences.

What Obama is stating is akin to, say, Turkey stating that they will attack Kurdistan to hunt down the PKK terrorists...which Iraq wouldn't want because it is their territory, and their responsiblity. National soverignity and control become rather important. So is protecting against terrorism. But the international crisis that could result if Obama send troops into Pakistan or openly bomb the Northwestern Territory...will be terrible.

People will call it an 'invasion'. America will have to fight in yet another area, similar to Afghanistan, and will have to be seen as 'occupiers'. I'm going to call it another quamire...and a quamire which does not make sense.

Obama is calling for it, and he will likely do it. And...er...I can't, I cannot look at any other aspect of Obama other than this invasion, other than this thing that goes against everything else he says. We must be humble, but we must be willing to do whatever we want. We must call for a summit with all Muslims, but we must not listen to whatever they say. And why is Obama not getting punished for it?

(EDIT: Well, prehaps to showcase my anger...

In an article by Sol W. Sanders, "The Truth about a War America Aren't Winning", U.S. News and World Report, August 5,1963...about the Vietnam War:

One British diplomat told me:

"We British felt we had to hold the Northwest Frontier in India during the nineteenth century. For almost 100 years we had to live with a bad situation, losing the lives of our young men, spending large sums of money to buy tribesmen and to fight wars. South Vietnam may be your Northwest Frontier."

And Northwest Frontier may be our South Vietnam.)

Corinthian
04-06-2008, 04:40 PM
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! THIS IS A TRIUMPH!

Betting opening now. Is Obama just a complete idiot, or is he deliberately throwing the race? This is the second time he's had one of these face-slapping idiocies against him, first with his priest buddy who he didn't drop, and now essentially promising a war! MCCAIN IS THE PEACEBRINGER! This is absolutely delightful!

mimartin
04-06-2008, 04:59 PM
MCCAIN IS THE PEACEBRINGER! Only if you consider the possibility of having occupation forces staying in Iraq for 100 years being a peaceful solution is John McCain a peacemaker. If Osama bin Laden, the leader of Al-Qaeda (in case that fact has been forgotten with our made up war in Iraq), is hiding in Pakistan then I see no reason not to go into Pakistan to get him. After all didn’t our current President say on September 20, 2001 “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Even Hillary Clinton said something similar 7 days before President Bush when she said, "Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."

Frankly, I believe if you are going to declare a “War on Terrorism” you should go after the terrorist and not just people that share some of their religious beliefs.

And Northwest Frontier may be our South Vietnam.)
Funny, I thought Iraq was this generations Vietnam.

Astor
04-06-2008, 05:06 PM
Only if you consider the possibility of having occupation forces staying in Iraq for 100 years being a peaceful solution is John McCain a peacemaker.

I'm not an American, but I do take an interest in world politics, so I have to ask: Where do people keep getting this '100 years' thing?

To me that just seems completely ludicrous, and fantastical.

I've been following the presidential race, and to be honest, If I were American, i'd vote for McCain. Clinton only seems to be interested in publicity, and all i've seen Obama do so far is Smile and Wave, Smile and Wave...

McCain's the only i've seen who is really doing anything - positive or negative.

Please correct this possibly not well informed Englishman if i've said anything wrong. :)

mimartin
04-06-2008, 05:11 PM
I'm not an American, but I do take an interest in world politics, so I have to ask: Where do people keep getting this '100 years' thing?
McCain want to use the Korea model and said we could possibility have troops in Iraq for the next 100 years. You Tube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk) showing the townhall meeting and McCain's comments.

TK-8252
04-06-2008, 05:17 PM
Yea um... it's gonna be the policy of ANY American President to go after Osama bin Laden and the rest of al-Qaeda if we know where they are, no matter if that country wants us to or not. What Barack said was not anything new. It has been our policy since 9/11. It will be the policy under any future Presidency, whether it be Clinton, Obama, or McCain.

This thread is an obvious Obama-bash which tries to play on his relative lack of foreign policy experience (not that Clinton or McCain have any positive foreign policy experiences - their votes for the Iraq War come to mind) and doesn't really hold any merit.

SilentScope001
04-06-2008, 05:21 PM
Funny, I thought Iraq was this generations Vietnam.

So do I. But I rather have only one Vietnam rather than two Vietnams in one generation, thank you very much.

Yea um... it's gonna be the policy of ANY American President to go after Osama bin Laden and the rest of al-Qaeda if we know where they are, no matter if that country wants us to or not.

Bush disagrees with you on this, strangely enough considering that he adopts this line for every other country. You will need the support of Pakistan. America provides lots of assistance to Pakistan in the War On Terrorism, but only if Pakistan asks for such assistance. Doing something the Pakistan government does not want (bomb its territory, or send in US troops)...and we just lost ourselves one ally.

Corinthian
04-06-2008, 05:33 PM
McCain wants to continue the Iraq War. Obama wants to open a third theater. I'd say McCain is the more peaceable of the two.

TK-8252
04-06-2008, 05:39 PM
Bush disagrees with you on this, strangely enough considering that he adopts this line for every other country. You will need the support of Pakistan. America provides lots of assistance to Pakistan in the War On Terrorism, but only if Pakistan asks for such assistance. Doing something the Pakistan government does not want (bomb its territory, or send in US troops)...and we just lost ourselves one ally.

What? When has Bush ever said that we would not take strike al-Qaeda in Pakistan if their government does not approve? If we knew where Osama bin Laden was, and he was somewhere in Pakistan, but their government tells us not to kill him, do you really think ANY American President would not go ahead and take out the man behind 9/11? And yeah we might lose them as allies, but what good is Pakistan as an ally if they won't let us take out what we know are al-Qaeda hideouts? If we lose them as an ally, well, damn, but I'd much rather see al-Qaeda destroyed and bin Laden dead.

Read this (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070723/ai_n19387166) article. Bush's homeland security advisor said basically the same thing Obama said.

Samuel Dravis
04-06-2008, 06:04 PM
The hypothetical described seems very similar to the thread a while back about Ecuador and Columbia. I think that someone would have to be pretty stupid to think that just because we're the US we can do such things without repercussions. People would get angry, just as the South American situation has shown. Of course, I imagine it would probably be reasonably easy to get permission to pursue Osama (in a limited fashion) inside Pakistan, so I'm not sure how realistic an alternate occurrence is.

mimartin
04-06-2008, 06:06 PM
John McCain wants to continue our current policies on the “War on Terrorism” by continuing the war in Iraq. Perhaps given 100 years they will find the WMDs we were all told Iraq had. He even has been threatening to escalate the war by going after Iran, seems his foreign policy is a little short in that he knows nothing about the difference between Shi’a and the Sunni or the history between them.

According to SilentScope001 information, Barack Obama wants to go after the people that attacked us on 9/11/2001.

Personally I would not call either peaceful, but Obama’s plan at least means we will be going after those that wronged the country I love.

SilentScope001
04-06-2008, 06:15 PM
Well, the topic worked in gauging data/support. If the American people is in support of this "violation of Pakistani soverginity"/"defense of America against evil terrorists", eh. This is a democracy, after all. Just that you should know what you are getting.

Anyway, I just realized that prehaps the people on this forum may not have heard about Obama's "invasion" plan until now, so I dug up some links so that you can decide for yourself.

Obama's belief on Pakistan is not new. He gotten flak all over the media when he mentioned the idea (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3434573&page=1) in 2007. He still keeps that policy and will not retract it. It is mentioned as part of the Obama Doctrine (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/the_obama_doctrine.php) article, and to me, a pretty major part.

mimartin
04-06-2008, 06:52 PM
If the American people is in support of this "violation of Pakistani soverginity"/"defense of America against evil terroristsI don’t want to violate any countries sovereignty, but that sentiment meant nothing when we were invading Iraq or Afghanistan. Wonder if sovereignty would mean anything under McCain’s plan on what to do about Iran.

Corinthian
04-06-2008, 07:11 PM
See, the thing is, no one is surprised when a Republican is a bit of a warhawk - we've kind of got that reputation. But a Liberal Democrat? This is delightful! Even the Liberals may not want to vote for him over this! I could dance.

JCarter426
04-06-2008, 07:22 PM
Even the Liberals may not want to vote for him over this! I could dance.

Doesn't mean they're going to vote for McCain (not that it matters, because Obama and Hillary have no chance in hell).

mimartin
04-06-2008, 07:37 PM
World War I – Woodrow Wilson – Democratic
World War II – Franklin Delano Roosevelt – Democratic
Korean War – Harry S. Truman – Democratic
Vietnam War – Lyndon Johnson – Democratic

Going by history, it should be no surprise that Democrats are war hawks.

Corinthian
04-06-2008, 07:46 PM
True, Mimartin, but people have begun to associate the Democrats as being the Dove Party.

Anyway, JCarter, if people don't want to vote for one or the other, they just won't vote. And that's good enough for me.

Ravnas
04-06-2008, 08:57 PM
Doesn't mean they're right in associating Democrats as peace-loving hippies, however voter apathy is never a good thing, it never is,and it never will be. If someone votes for the wrong person and they win,they will have a horrible presidency(if they're lucky :roleyess: ), and that person at least has four years(eight if they're unlucky :D ) to learn what a stupid decision they made.

Corinthian
04-06-2008, 09:07 PM
Doesn't matter to me. The most important thing to me right now is that Obama does NOT win this election. He seems to be granting my wishes, much like a pet Genie. I think I'll put him in a lamp.

Ravnas
04-06-2008, 09:27 PM
Your wishes aren't everybody's wishes, although I can see how the average uninformed person would be turned off by Obama's statements. Not a snipe against you, just pointing out a fact. But I suppose an uninformed voter wouldn't know anything about where Bin Ladin's hiding so that would render a lot of opinions irrelavent.

Jvstice
04-06-2008, 10:01 PM
When Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama met in California for the Jan. 31 debate, their back-and-forth resembled their many previous encounters, with the Democratic presidential hopefuls scrambling for the small policy yardage between them. And then Obama said something about the Iraq War that wasn't incremental at all. "I don't want to just end the war," he said, "but I want to end the mind-set that got us into war in the first place."

Until this point in the primaries, Clinton and Obama had sounded very similar on this issue. Despite their differences in the past (Obama opposed the war, while Clinton voted for it), both were calling for major troop withdrawals, with some residual force left behind to hedge against catastrophe. But Obama's concise declaration of intent at the debate upended this assumption. Clinton stumbled to find a counterargument, eventually saying her vote in October 2002 "was not authority for a pre-emptive war." Then she questioned Obama's ability to lead, saying that the Democratic nominee must have "the necessary credentials and gravitas for commander in chief."

If Clinton's response on Iraq sounds familiar, that's because it's structurally identical to the defensive crouch John Kerry assumed in 2004: Voting against the war wasn't a mistake; the mistakes were all George W. Bush's, and bringing the war to a responsible conclusion requires a wise man or woman with military credibility. In that debate, Obama offered an alternative path. Ending the war is only the first step. After we're out of Iraq, a corrosive mind-set will still be infecting the foreign-policy establishment and the body politic. That rot must be eliminated.

Silentscope: I got that from the link you posted on what he stands for. And if you read further into "the Obama Doctrine," he's in favor of getting us out of Iraq, seeing no need for a fight with Iran. Likewise we'd still be fighting Afghanistan no matter who gets in between him, Hillary, or McCain. Obama doesn't simply say we should invade Pakistan though. He simply repeats what George Bush told us would be the new U.S. policy. We're going to go after terrorists. If Pakistan won't do it themselves, we'll do it, and we won't use nukes to do it. All in all that sounds a very positive thing that common sense be the basis for where and if we fight, and not fraud and propaganda.

And I would like to see a general election between McCain and Obama. At least then we'd see two different views actually expressed and debated on their merits. Hillary's just a "me too" on the republican foriegn policy. Not saying that I'm unconditionally in favor of what he has to say, but based on what you posted I am intrigued. This from someone who considered themselves a Reagan conservative in the 80s, even though I was too young to vote until Bush the first ran.

Jae Onasi
04-06-2008, 10:42 PM
Where did you read or hear that _Obama_ said he'd invade Pakistan?

Jvstice
04-06-2008, 11:15 PM
Obama never said that he'd invade Pakistan from anything I've seen so far. He said we should go after the terrorists there if they were there and if Pakistan refused to do it themselves when confronted with the information that terrorists were within their borders. That's two really big ifs that we have no reason to assume are true.

The full text of what silent scope linked is here from that summary he posted.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_obama_doctrine

Corinthian
04-06-2008, 11:20 PM
Be that as it may, if the general public believes he did say that or interprets it to that effect, well, more dissension in the Democratic Party. Rush is no doubt happy as a clam. Operation Chaos is bearing unexpected fruit.

Tommycat
04-06-2008, 11:37 PM
Likewise McCain never said we'd be in Iraq for 100 years either. That hasn't stopped the Anti-Republicans from splattering that junk on the web. So what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Jvstice
04-06-2008, 11:41 PM
No matter how this election goes, the neocons will have to deal with a president who is on record saying that waterboarding is torture. The number of fronts is up for grabs if the candidates stick to what they say now.

McCain: Afghanistan, Iraq, possibly Iran

Hillary: Afghanistan, Iraq, and possibly Iran and maybe eventually get out of Iraq, though she really hasn't committed wholeheareted to that as a goal.

Obama: Afghanistan and MAYBE regions within Pakistan, though there's been no mention of declaring or fighting an actual war against Pakistan, and he has mentioned specific tactics he wouldn't sanction (nukes) for getting rid of the terrorists.

Tommycat: No. He simply said that if the deaths could be reduced, he wouldn't mind if we were. That's not the same as a pledge to keep us there. I would say that it is a good indication of which way he leans though.

Tommycat
04-06-2008, 11:58 PM
No matter how this election goes, the neocons will have to deal with a president who is on record saying that waterboarding is torture. The number of fronts is up for grabs if the candidates stick to what they say now.

McCain: Afghanistan, Iraq, possibly Iran

Hillary: Afghanistan, Iraq, and possibly Iran and maybe eventually get out of Iraq, though she really hasn't committed wholeheareted to that as a goal.

Obama: Afghanistan and MAYBE regions within Pakistan, though there's been no mention of declaring or fighting an actual war against Pakistan, and he has mentioned specific tactics he wouldn't sanction (nukes) for getting rid of the terrorists.

Tommycat: No. He simply said that if the deaths could be reduced, he wouldn't mind if we were. That's not the same as a pledge to keep us there. I would say that it is a good indication of which way he leans though.
Oh so you're taking Hil and Obama at their words, but Mc Cain, you inject your speculation and it's fine. I mean by Obama's standards we're not really fighting Iraq anymore, only regions of Iraq.

McCain has said if there were NO deaths he wouldn't mind us staying, but that isn't likely to happen. Besides, unless they change the Constitution, and up McCain's lifespan, 100 more years isn't something we're going to see.

JCarter426
04-07-2008, 12:19 AM
This is where I point out that the President isn't supposed to have any say in who we go to war with.

Ravnas
04-07-2008, 12:32 AM
Oh we know, there're simply building new ideas on this new method of governing a constitutional republican government :D

mimartin
04-07-2008, 01:00 AM
McCain has said if there were NO deaths he wouldn't mind us staying, but that isn't likely to happen. Besides, unless they change the Constitution, and up McCain's lifespan, 100 more years isn't something we're going to see. Forgive me, but are you saying that a President’s influence over this nation ends when his term is up? Treaties negotiated, allies gained or lost, trade pacts, Supreme Court Justices, bills signed into law/bills vetoed and promises made do not end when the President that made them term is up. Most Presidents have left their mark on this country, for better or worst. No sir, the President’s influence does not end when his/her term is over; it is felt long after the President has left office. (Sorry, I have been watching John Adams and I am feeling a little patriotic and full of idealism.)

Ravnas
04-07-2008, 01:13 AM
And if I know anything, Bush's influence will leave scars..err..marks :D on this country. But back on topic, whoever wins the upcoming election should be more worried about how they're going to pay for further occupation of any area of the Middle-East then the actual occupation :confused:

SilentScope001
04-07-2008, 01:13 AM
Obama never said that he'd invade Pakistan from anything I've seen so far.

Hm. Technically, Obama is not calling for an invasion of Pakistan, per se, BUT he is calling for sending troops and bombs into Pakistan if he feels Al-Qadiah is there, regardless of wheter Pakistan wants to or not. That's the thing.

It isn't technically an invasion, but people are going to not look at techancialities. They are going to look at one thing: Does Pakistan want US troops in the Northwestern Frontier? If no, then it is surely a violation of national soverignty. The Media does not really care of techncailities: it has claimed that Cambodia was invaded by US troops when the Cambodian government asked for those troops...and it has claimed that Afghanistan was invaded by the USSR, when the pro-USSR government asked for those troops. How do you think the Media will feel if the US deploy troops and bombs into Pakistan publically and Pakistan does not want those troops and bombs, unlike the Camobidan and Afghanistani governments?

Don't forget Osama bin Laden and his cronies. If the US send troops into Pakistan, don't you think they would call it an invasion as well? It could be just the thing to help rally up the insurgent base, if you will.

If Pakistan doesn't want our troops to go there or if our bombs to be dropped on their territory, then I think we should actually respect their wishes instead of going against them. [This could mean that if Obama gets Pakistan's premission, then we can send in troops, but it is rather unlikely Obama will get Pakistan's premission, because Pakistan want to keep control of its own territory and security.]

Yes, the current Bush regime is doing bombing secretly, but that's the thing: It is secret. It is secret because if it was public, like what Obama is proposing, then Pakistan will get even more angry. And it is also low-key, not at all what Obama is implying.

EDIT: Anyway, I want to try and drum up opposition to Obama's plan without calling it an invasion (which it isn't), but rather, a violation of national soverignty. It's pretty hard to do so though, so I made several mistakes when stating 'invasion' when I really didn't mean to, but I hope you understand what I am trying to state: What Obama proposed is bad, and it is even more bad because he is willing to do so pubically instead of doing it in private and secretly as to not offend anyone.

This sort of thing happened before: Ecaudor/Veneuzla vs. Colombia for one. And, in the 1990's, Rwanda got in trouble with Congo when Rwanda sent its troops to occupy Congo and hunt down Hutu rebels...which led to Rwanda and Congo fighting each other in the Second Congonese Civil War. Tensions between the two countries still exist.

Tommycat
04-07-2008, 01:15 AM
Forgive me, but are you saying that a President’s influence over this nation ends when his term is up? Treaties negotiated, allies gained or lost, trade pacts, Supreme Court Justices, bills signed into law/bills vetoed and promises made do not end when the President that made them term is up. Most Presidents have left their mark on this country, for better or worst. No sir, the President’s influence does not end when his/her term is over; it is felt long after the President has left office. (Sorry, I have been watching John Adams and I am feeling a little patriotic and full of idealism.)
Not at all, However I will say that it is not guaranteed to live on. Heck McCain could only guarantee that the troops would be in for 8 years and the next president could easily say we're yanking them out anyway.

While people may not agree with WHY we went to war, there is one problem with yanking out our troops right now. Geneva Conventions state that the occupying force must remain until such time as the infrastructure and government are fully functional. And Don't bother with the "Well the US ignored Geneva Conventions before" junk, because if you really believe that absolves the US from GC responsibilities in Iraq, you need to wake the heck up.

TK-8252
04-07-2008, 02:02 AM
True, Mimartin, but people have begun to associate the Democrats as being the Dove Party.

No one really thought of Democrats as the anti-war party until the Iraq War went south and they started criticizing. Many Democrats were for the Iraq War - John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, etc., before they were against it. The Democratic Party is not an anti-war party... it's an anti-Republican-war party. Just as the Republican party is an anti-Democratic-war party.

The dirty little secret is that starting war is the most quick and efficient way to expand the power of the executive branch to borderline unconstitutional levels. Both parties are out to grab power, whether it be by winning elections, stealing elections, gerrymandering, warmongering, scaring the people, passing bad legislation (the Patriot Act comes to mind), or outright criminal activity (Watergate, warrantless wiretapping, etc.)

The Republican Party used to be thought of as anti-war. The Vietnam War ended under Nixon's Presidency. Republicans were highly critical of Bill Clinton for "nation-building" and other military engagements. I really doubt that the Democratic Party would be nearly unanimously against the Iraq War if a Democratic President would have started it, just as I really doubt that the Republican Party would be nearly unanimously for the Iraq War if a Democratic President would have started it.

Ravnas
04-07-2008, 02:16 AM
Actually, I know tons of liberal-leaning folks who wouldn't have supported the war if a Democrat led it. Although you are right in most situations. The hypocrisy of the average person is astounding.

Tommycat
04-07-2008, 02:24 AM
No one really thought of Democrats as the anti-war party until the Iraq War went south and they started criticizing. Many Democrats were for the Iraq War - John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, etc., before they were against it. The Democratic Party is not an anti-war party... it's an anti-Republican-war party. Just as the Republican party is an anti-Democratic-war party.

The dirty little secret is that starting war is the most quick and efficient way to expand the power of the executive branch to borderline unconstitutional levels. Both parties are out to grab power, whether it be by winning elections, stealing elections, gerrymandering, warmongering, scaring the people, passing bad legislation (the Patriot Act comes to mind), or outright criminal activity (Watergate, warrantless wiretapping, etc.)

The Republican Party used to be thought of as anti-war. The Vietnam War ended under Nixon's Presidency. Republicans were highly critical of Bill Clinton for "nation-building" and other military engagements. I really doubt that the Democratic Party would be nearly unanimously against the Iraq War if a Democratic President would have started it, just as I really doubt that the Republican Party would be nearly unanimously for the Iraq War if a Democratic President would have started it.
You just said what I've been trying to tell people for a long time. Had GW not been the president in 2001, we would still have ended up in Iraq in 02. The only difference would have been that we wouldn't have GW being made fun of, it would be Gore. I can hear the Republican's cries now, "WE DON'T NEED WAR, WE DON'T NEED GORE!" Kinda had a nice ring to it.

JCarter426
04-07-2008, 02:34 AM
Actually, I know tons of liberal-leaning folks who wouldn't have supported the war if a Democrat led it. Although you are right in most situations. The hypocrisy of the average person is astounding.

For instance, the mainstream media, which was the number one supporter of the war at the start.

Q
04-07-2008, 02:39 AM
No one really thought of Democrats as the anti-war party until the Iraq War went south and they started criticizing. Many Democrats were for the Iraq War - John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, etc., before they were against it. The Democratic Party is not an anti-war party... it's an anti-Republican-war party. Just as the Republican party is an anti-Democratic-war party.

The dirty little secret is that starting war is the most quick and efficient way to expand the power of the executive branch to borderline unconstitutional levels. Both parties are out to grab power, whether it be by winning elections, stealing elections, gerrymandering, warmongering, scaring the people, passing bad legislation (the Patriot Act comes to mind), or outright criminal activity (Watergate, warrantless wiretapping, etc.)

The Republican Party used to be thought of as anti-war. The Vietnam War ended under Nixon's Presidency. Republicans were highly critical of Bill Clinton for "nation-building" and other military engagements. I really doubt that the Democratic Party would be nearly unanimously against the Iraq War if a Democratic President would have started it, just as I really doubt that the Republican Party would be nearly unanimously for the Iraq War if a Democratic President would have started it.
Excellent post, TK. :thumbsup: Welcome back!

The last war that Americans almost unanimously agreed to fight was ~63 years ago.

Ravnas
04-07-2008, 02:42 AM
For instance, the mainstream media, which was the number one supporter of the war at the start.

It really is a shame, there's way too much hypocrisy and jumping on the bandwagon. That's why I don't watch Fox,CNN,MSNBC or any of that drivel. I stick with PBS,Stephen Colbert, and Jon Stewart for my news :D

JCarter426
04-07-2008, 02:48 AM
The last war that Americans almost unanimously agreed to fight was ~63 years ago.

That was the last one that was actually declared by Congress, as well. Funny, isn't it?

I stick with PBS,Stephen Colbert, and Jon Stewart for my news :D

Same here. :D

EnderWiggin
04-07-2008, 06:31 AM
...He has stated repeately that he will bomb the Northwestern Territory/Northwest Frontier (a 'province' in Pakistan), that he would send troops over there if needed, if Osama bin Laden or Al-Qadiah is there...even without the premission of the Pakistani government. He has not retracted this, even when other people condemned him...

Can we get a citation on this please?

You say it was repeatedly stated and that he's been condemned, but as of Friday I didn't hear anything on FOXNews about it. Being a democrat, and seeing as FOX is a largely conservative news channel, I think I would have heard some criticism if this were the case.

I agree with Jae, where did you hear this?

_EW_

SilentScope001
04-07-2008, 10:49 AM
Can we get a citation on this please?

Random citations from Google, but:
Pakistan raps ‘irresponsible’ Obama remarks (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20104834/)

Obama willing to invade Pakistan in al-Qaeda hunt (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2182955.ece) (the title said invade, but I don't see it as an invasion)

Obama's Warning to Pakistan Drives Democratic Debate (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/08/02/dan_on_obama.html)

Tough talk on Pakistan from Obama (http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801)

FOX NEWS: Pakistan Criticizes Obama on Comments (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291982,00.html)

ABC News: Sparks Fly Over Obama's Pakistan Speech (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/08/sparks-fly-over.html)

Being a democrat, and seeing as FOX is a largely conservative news channel, I think I would have heard some criticism if this were the case.

This was back in August 2007 when he made those comments, and that was where he was criticized by Democratic rivals such as Clinton. However, the Obama Doctrine article correctly linked by Jvstice (thanks) indicated that he has not retracted that statement, and still stands by it. Being rather shocked about the implications, and the fact that the media forgot about it after making a fuss back in 2007, I made this topic.

But it was a pretty big news event back in August 2007. And you still do hear some minor criticism, and then some response back from Obama. This quote came from Feb. 2008:

"The best idea is not to broadcast what you're going to do, that's naive," said McCain, who also questioned the very notion of "bombing Pakistan without their permission." ...

In a conference call with reporters to respond, Obama foreign policy advisor Susan Rice said that McCain was "misrepresenting and distorting Barack Obama's positions" and argued that the Democrat "never suggested bombing an ally."

"McCain promises more war in Iraq," she said. "Obama will end the war in Iraq and focus on terrorists in Afghanistan."

McCain, Obama Battle Over Pakistan (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/20/mccain-obama-battle-over_n_87591.html) (pro-Obama blog post)
***
I kinda knew that I lost, but I might as well get myself on stable footing to state that this may happen (and if it is may, I think it will).

mimartin
04-07-2008, 02:26 PM
Had GW not been the president in 2001, we would still have ended up in Iraq in 02. Why? While I agree we would have been in Afghanistan no matter the President, I find it hard to believe we would be in Iraq, unless Cheney and Rumsfeld found a way to get themselves in that administration. Let’s not forget that although he towed the administration line, not everyone in the administration was convinced that invasion was the proper course of action. See Colin Powell for an example. The more prudent of Presidents may have seen Saddam Hussein as a threat, but figured our “War on Terror” took precedent before opening up a second front and diluting the resources needed in Afghanistan.

Yes, the current Bush regime is doing bombing secretly, but that's the thing: It is secret. It is secret because if it was public, like what Obama is proposing, then Pakistan will get even more angry. And it is also low-key, not at all what Obama is implying. Maybe Obama believes like many Americans that openness of the government is a good thing. I don’t get that Obama is implying he would carpet bomb the entire country. What I get from his rhetoric is surgical strikes or the same thing we are doing now. It just sounds like he is not going to cry executive privilege every time something comes up.

Just in case some do not know, I made the mistake of voting for President Bush in his first Presidential election. While I do not consider myself a liberal on anything, but social issues, my misjudgment has cured me from voting Republican for the rest of my life time. :D

SilentScope001
04-07-2008, 02:38 PM
Maybe Obama believes like many Americans that openness of the government is a good thing.

Not when said openness will likely enough make our allies upset and fuel American resistance. A major doctrine, plausible deniablity, is necessary, otherwise America may receive flak that it does not want. And Obama is tearing that up.

I don’t get that Obama is implying he would carpet bomb the entire country. What I get from his rhetoric is surgical strikes or the same thing we are doing now. It just sounds like he is not going to cry executive privilege every time something comes up.

He isn't implying carpet bombing, but the fact that he is implying bombing at all is what causes some concerns. Any bombing campagin can cause some damage to civilians, and it will be abused as a properganda point against the US.

Just in case some do not know, I made the mistake of voting for President Bush in his first Presidential election. While I do not consider myself a liberal on anything, but social issues, my misjudgment has cured me from voting Republican for the rest of my life time.

Never say never. You may regret it. :p

EDIT: Sorry for responding to your post every single second (which sadly is taking away time from schoolwork). The goal is now no longer to persuade, just to figure out what people believe...Eh.

Corinthian
04-07-2008, 03:07 PM
I think Obama must be a masochist or something. He relishes shooting his own party down. Maybe he's a Republican in disguise...

Totenkopf
04-07-2008, 03:14 PM
Frankly, it's another example of poorly chosen words on BO's part. Even if he would clandestinely, and possibly w/some degree of deniable culpability, go after AQ targets in Pakistan, it's imprudent to state it so openly (and pretty freaking stupid to boot). If it turned out that AQ was in Iran, would he openly be calling for strikes on that islamic republic as well? What about Turkey? Russia? The PRC? Britain?

Tommycat
04-07-2008, 09:27 PM
Why? While I agree we would have been in Afghanistan no matter the President, I find it hard to believe we would be in Iraq, unless Cheney and Rumsfeld found a way to get themselves in that administration. Let’s not forget that although he towed the administration line, not everyone in the administration was convinced that invasion was the proper course of action. See Colin Powell for an example. The more prudent of Presidents may have seen Saddam Hussein as a threat, but figured our “War on Terror” took precedent before opening up a second front and diluting the resources needed in Afghanistan.
You're kidding, right? Clinton was even planning an invasion of Iraq. In fact he turned that plan over to Bush. You think that Gore would have completely turned from the plan his predicessor gave him? Bearing in mind that Clinton got us into several wars and even had us join the side of genocide, somehow because the rhetoric has shifted to republicans being hawks we're suddenly the war party. You must not study history much. Usually it's the Dems that get us into wars. To believe that this is somehow Cheney's war is completely naive. It's not like none of the Dems have ties to big oil. Heck if you look deep enough YOU might have ties to big oil.

mimartin
04-07-2008, 09:43 PM
You must not study history much. Usually it's the Dems that get us into wars. You may want to read post #16 (http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2446619&postcount=16) in this thread, before questioning my intelligence of American history. ;)
I'll also restate what I wrote in the post you quoted. The more prudent of Presidents may have seen Saddam Hussein as a threat, but figured our “War on Terror” took precedent before opening up a second front and diluting the resources needed in Afghanistan. I'm saying things changed after 09/11/2001 and our policies should have changed too.

Totenkopf
04-07-2008, 10:02 PM
While Johnson escalated US involvement in Vietnam, the US was already involved under both Eisenhower and Kennedy post-Dien Bien Phu.

Tommycat
04-07-2008, 10:27 PM
You may want to read post #16 (http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2446619&postcount=16) in this thread, before questioning my intelligence of American history. ;)
I'll also restate what I wrote in the post you quoted. I'm saying things changed after 09/11/2001 and our policies should have changed too.
Again I don't think you understand, the only reason the dems are now coming out against the Iraq war(when many of them were for it, nearly unanimous) is because it's a wonderful tool to bash the Republicans for. Had it been Gore in office, he would have done pretty much the same thing. Hit Afghanistan, and because we already have the support materials in the area, may as well clean up a mess from before. He would have used it as an opportunity to bash the republicans by saying that it was his job to clean up the mess we left there. 9/11 may have changed some of our priorities, but with Iraq shooting at our aircraft, and continued sabre rattling, if you think Gore wouldn't have gone in, you are naive. Not to mention it puts added pressure on Iran to clean up.

But my appologies for the history comment.

JCarter426
04-07-2008, 10:38 PM
I don't like to deal in what-ifs, but I highly doubt that Gore would have gone into Iraq. The Bush administration was actively looking for a good reason to invade the country, and I don't think that was part of Gore's agenda.

Jvstice
04-07-2008, 10:44 PM
Oh so you're taking Hil and Obama at their words, but Mc Cain, you inject your speculation and it's fine. I mean by Obama's standards we're not really fighting Iraq anymore, only regions of Iraq.

McCain has said if there were NO deaths he wouldn't mind us staying, but that isn't likely to happen. Besides, unless they change the Constitution, and up McCain's lifespan, 100 more years isn't something we're going to see.
I'm taking McCain at his word too. He's said he supports being in Iraq, supports the surge, and thinks that it needs to be taken to a greater degree than Bush has voted for, and that we need to actually listen to our generals. I do think much of our handling of Iraq would improve with him in regard to listening to the troops and listening to our generals for a change rather than firing them whenever they say something that he doesn't want ot hear like Bush has done.

My objection to McCain is that he thinks it's still winnable there and only makes assumptions on our future course of actions on the assumption that we will eventually be successful. His saying that the surge is worth doing and that we need to send more than Bush and Cheney support is evidence of this. His own words.... not speculation as you've accused me of.

To be honest I voted against Clinton both times, and for Bush both. In Bush's case I saw both Bush elections as a choice between someone who won't defend us vs someone who's looking for a fight. I thought the war with Iraq was a bad fight to pick at the time, but did go with Bush because once picked I thought it was stupid to lower your guard when you've already provoked someone to the point where they want you dead. So I'll admit I'm late to the anti - war movement, because I generally oppose a lot of their other, related stands, though I generally agreed that it was a stupid irrelevant fight to pick to the war on terror from the get go.


Don't forget Osama bin Laden and his cronies. If the US send troops into Pakistan, don't you think they would call it an invasion as well? It could be just the thing to help rally up the insurgent base, if you will.

If Pakistan doesn't want our troops to go there or if our bombs to be dropped on their territory, then I think we should actually respect their wishes instead of going against them. [This could mean that if Obama gets Pakistan's premission, then we can send in troops, but it is rather unlikely Obama will get Pakistan's premission, because Pakistan want to keep control of its own territory and security.]

Yes, the current Bush regime is doing bombing secretly, but that's the thing: It is secret. It is secret because if it was public, like what Obama is proposing, then Pakistan will get even more angry. And it is also low-key, not at all what Obama is implying.

EDIT: Anyway, I want to try and drum up opposition to Obama's plan without calling it an invasion (which it isn't), but rather, a violation of national soverignty. It's pretty hard to do so though, so I made several mistakes when stating 'invasion' when I really didn't mean to, but I hope you understand what I am trying to state: What Obama proposed is bad, and it is even more bad because he is willing to do so pubically instead of doing it in private and secretly as to not offend anyone.

This sort of thing happened before: Ecaudor/Veneuzla vs. Colombia for one. And, in the 1990's, Rwanda got in trouble with Congo when Rwanda sent its troops to occupy Congo and hunt down Hutu rebels...which led to Rwanda and Congo fighting each other in the Second Congonese Civil War. Tensions between the two countries still exist.

I agree that respecting national soverignty of foriegn countries is something we should do. But we're outright occupying Iraq, Afghanistan, the Kosovo region of Bosnia/Serbia. That's such a cart before the horse arguement that we should respect the soveriegnty of other nations when our entire foriegn policy since the time of Clinton has been to run rough shod over the soveriegnty of every other nation we when we don't approve of how they handle civil matters.

mimartin
04-07-2008, 10:48 PM
Again I don't think you understand, the only reason the dems are now coming out against the Iraq war(when many of them were for it, nearly unanimous) is because it's a wonderful tool to bash the Republicans for. With an approval rating of being between 28% and 35% (depending on which poll you look at) I would say it is more than just the Democrats coming down on the war in Iraq or is the country now made up of between 64% and 62% (those that disapprove of the job President Bush is doing) Democrats. If so, I’d say the democrats are assured victory come November. No, even those that voted for Mr. Bush are coming down on him because of the mismanagement of the entire war. By the way, I do not just blame the Bush administration, I blame the Republican controlled congress at the time, I blame the Democrats in congress for not asking more questions about the “so-called” intelligence and I blame the American people for not holding all our elected officials accountable.

Had it been Gore in office, he would have done pretty much the same thing. Hit Afghanistan, and because we already have the support materials in the area, may as well clean up a mess from before. He would have used it as an opportunity to bash the republicans by saying that it was his job to clean up the mess we left there. You can believe that if you wish. We will never know what would have happened under a different President. I believe Gore would have listened to the Military and not had the I know better than all of you attitude that Bush had.

Achilles
04-07-2008, 11:02 PM
<snip>...and I blame the American people for not holding all our elected officials accountable. Someone give this man a cookie!

You can believe that if you wish. We will never know what would have happened under a different President. I believe Gore would have listened to the Military and not had the I know better than all of you attitude that Bush had.You mean instead of letting a neo-con think tank run things? Not sure if PNAC had anyone else but Bush in their pocket during the 2000 primaries. Gore wasn't.

EDIT: Both Dan Quayle and Steve Forbes have had ties to PNAC in the past. It's possible that they would have led us into Iraq as well had they secured the nomination in 2000. So PNAC had three candidates in the race. Hmmm, I guess they didn't want to risk having to wait another 4 years to get their war in Iraq.

Ravnas
04-08-2008, 02:30 AM
Well Iraq has always been #1 on top U.S. Military Vacation spots in the past 15 years or so :D Though I doubt Quayle and Forbes would've have a chance in the 00' Election.Even Gore's slogan seemed redundant.

JCarter426
04-08-2008, 02:41 AM
So PNAC had three candidates in the race. Hmmm, I guess they didn't want to risk having to wait another 4 years to get their war in Iraq.

Instead of trying to build a new America, why don't they focus on fixing the one we've got now?

Achilles
04-08-2008, 02:50 AM
Well Iraq has always been #1 on top U.S. Military Vacation spots in the past 15 years or so :D Though I doubt Quayle and Forbes would've have a chance in the 00' Election.Even Gore's slogan seemed redundant.When you consider that the same gang of guys have been in key positions in Washington for the last 30-odd years (Clinton administration excluded), I think the likelihood of that being a coincidence drops to somewhere in the neighborhood of zero. Start with Paul Wolfowitz and work your way out. Might be amazed by what you find.

Instead of trying to build a new America, why don't they focus on fixing the one we've got now? It's a matter of priorities. They mean "New American Century" as in "New Century of American Political and Military Dominance in the World". Nothing in that agenda seems too concerned about silly liberal ideas of social justice, etc.