lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Obama will invade the Northwestern Territory of Pakistan...If he is not stopped
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 04-07-2008, 07:31 AM   #41
EnderWiggin
Sine Amore Nihil Est Vita
 
EnderWiggin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,395
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilentScope001
...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_



Hello, Pot? This is Kettle. You're black. ~ Prime

Yes, I hate you.

J7 - thanks for accepting me as part of the 'family.'
EnderWiggin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-07-2008, 11:49 AM   #42
SilentScope001
May The Force Serve You.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,236
Quote:
Can we get a citation on this please?
Random citations from Google, but:
Pakistan raps ‘irresponsible’ Obama remarks

Obama willing to invade Pakistan in al-Qaeda hunt (the title said invade, but I don't see it as an invasion)

Obama's Warning to Pakistan Drives Democratic Debate

Tough talk on Pakistan from Obama

FOX NEWS: Pakistan Criticizes Obama on Comments

ABC News: Sparks Fly Over Obama's Pakistan Speech

Quote:
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:

Quote:
"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 (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).


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Onion
"The Cambodian government has established many exciting-sounding 're-education camps' where both intellectuals and everyday citizens can be sent at any time," Day said. Well, we at Barnes & Noble have always supported re-education in America, and we intend to extend this policy to our new customers." For every hardcover book sold, Barnes & Noble will donate a dollar to the Cambodian government to help re-educate local children.
Full Article Here
SilentScope001 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-07-2008, 03:26 PM   #43
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,064
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilentScope001
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.


mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-07-2008, 03:38 PM   #44
SilentScope001
May The Force Serve You.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,236
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Onion
"The Cambodian government has established many exciting-sounding 're-education camps' where both intellectuals and everyday citizens can be sent at any time," Day said. Well, we at Barnes & Noble have always supported re-education in America, and we intend to extend this policy to our new customers." For every hardcover book sold, Barnes & Noble will donate a dollar to the Cambodian government to help re-educate local children.
Full Article Here
SilentScope001 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-07-2008, 04:07 PM   #45
Corinthian
Banned
 
Corinthian's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,165
I think Obama must be a masochist or something. He relishes shooting his own party down. Maybe he's a Republican in disguise...
Corinthian is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-07-2008, 04:14 PM   #46
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
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?


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-07-2008, 10:27 PM   #47
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,578
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin
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.
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-07-2008, 10:43 PM   #48
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,064
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat
You must not study history much. Usually it's the Dems that get us into wars.
You may want to read post #16 in this thread, before questioning my intelligence of American history.
I'll also restate what I wrote in the post you quoted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by me
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.


mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-07-2008, 11:02 PM   #49
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
While Johnson escalated US involvement in Vietnam, the US was already involved under both Eisenhower and Kennedy post-Dien Bien Phu.


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-07-2008, 11:27 PM   #50
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,578
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin
You may want to read post #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.
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-07-2008, 11:38 PM   #51
JCarter426
Senior Member
 
JCarter426's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Look to your left.
Posts: 1,640
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.


JCarter426 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-07-2008, 11:44 PM   #52
Jvstice
Junior Member
 
Jvstice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilentScope001
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.


"If force is the game, the murderer wins over the pickpocket." Ayn Rand

"Justice is the midpoint between being treated unjustly, and treating others unjustly." Aristotle
Jvstice is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-07-2008, 11:48 PM   #53
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,064
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat
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.



Last edited by mimartin; 04-08-2008 at 12:25 PM.
mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-08-2008, 12:02 AM   #54
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin
<snip>...and I blame the American people for not holding all our elected officials accountable.
Someone give this man a cookie!

Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin
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.

Last edited by Achilles; 04-08-2008 at 12:17 AM.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-08-2008, 03:30 AM   #55
Ravnas
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In ur oilfieldz drinking ur mi
Posts: 190
Post

Well Iraq has always been #1 on top U.S. Military Vacation spots in the past 15 years or so Though I doubt Quayle and Forbes would've have a chance in the 00' Election.Even Gore's slogan seemed redundant.


Regrets are for horseshoes and handbags.
Ravnas is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-08-2008, 03:41 AM   #56
JCarter426
Senior Member
 
JCarter426's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Look to your left.
Posts: 1,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
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?


JCarter426 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-08-2008, 03:50 AM   #57
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravnas
Well Iraq has always been #1 on top U.S. Military Vacation spots in the past 15 years or so 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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JCarter426
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.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > Knights of the Old Republic > Community > Kavar's Corner > Obama will invade the Northwestern Territory of Pakistan...If he is not stopped

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:07 AM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.