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 04-06-2008, 03:53 PM   #1
SilentScope001
May The Force Serve You.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,236
Obama will invade the Northwestern Territory of Pakistan...If he is not stopped

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:

Quote:
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.)


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

Last edited by SilentScope001; 04-06-2008 at 04:09 PM.
SilentScope001 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-06-2008, 04:40 PM   #2
Corinthian
Banned
 
Corinthian's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,165
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!
Corinthian is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-06-2008, 04:59 PM   #3
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,053
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corinthian
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilentScope001
And Northwest Frontier may be our South Vietnam.)
Funny, I thought Iraq was this generations Vietnam.


mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-06-2008, 05:06 PM   #4
Astor
It's Thornhill!
 
Astor's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Warwickshire, UK
Posts: 3,632
Current Game: The Old Republic
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin
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.
Astor is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-06-2008, 05:11 PM   #5
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,053
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astor_Kaine
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 showing the townhall meeting and McCain's comments.


mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-06-2008, 05:17 PM   #6
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
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.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-06-2008, 05:21 PM   #7
SilentScope001
May The Force Serve You.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,236
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.


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 04-06-2008, 05:33 PM   #8
Corinthian
Banned
 
Corinthian's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,165
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.
Corinthian is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-06-2008, 05:39 PM   #9
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilentScope001
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 article. Bush's homeland security advisor said basically the same thing Obama said.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-06-2008, 06:04 PM   #10
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
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.


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-06-2008, 06:06 PM   #11
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,053
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
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.


mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-06-2008, 06:15 PM   #12
SilentScope001
May The Force Serve You.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,236
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 in 2007. He still keeps that policy and will not retract it. It is mentioned as part of the Obama Doctrine article, and to me, a pretty major part.


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 04-06-2008, 06:52 PM   #13
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,053
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilentScope001
If the American people is in support of this "violation of Pakistani soverginity"/"defense of America against evil terrorists
I 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.


mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-06-2008, 07:11 PM   #14
Corinthian
Banned
 
Corinthian's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,165
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.
Corinthian is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-06-2008, 07:22 PM   #15
JCarter426
Senior Member
 
JCarter426's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Look to your left.
Posts: 1,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corinthian
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).


JCarter426 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-06-2008, 07:37 PM   #16
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,053
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
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.


mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-06-2008, 07:46 PM   #17
Corinthian
Banned
 
Corinthian's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,165
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.
Corinthian is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-06-2008, 08:57 PM   #18
Ravnas
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In ur oilfieldz drinking ur mi
Posts: 190
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 ), and that person at least has four years(eight if they're unlucky ) to learn what a stupid decision they made.


Regrets are for horseshoes and handbags.
Ravnas is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-06-2008, 09:07 PM   #19
Corinthian
Banned
 
Corinthian's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,165
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.
Corinthian is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-06-2008, 09:27 PM   #20
Ravnas
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In ur oilfieldz drinking ur mi
Posts: 190
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.


Regrets are for horseshoes and handbags.
Ravnas is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-06-2008, 10:01 PM   #21
Jvstice
Junior Member
 
Jvstice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 382
Quote:
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.


"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 04-06-2008, 10:42 PM   #22
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,916
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
Where did you read or hear that _Obama_ said he'd invade Pakistan?


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-06-2008, 11:15 PM   #23
Jvstice
Junior Member
 
Jvstice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 382
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?...obama_doctrine


"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 04-06-2008, 11:20 PM   #24
Corinthian
Banned
 
Corinthian's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,165
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.
Corinthian is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-06-2008, 11:37 PM   #25
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,578
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
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.
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-06-2008, 11:41 PM   #26
Jvstice
Junior Member
 
Jvstice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 382
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.


"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 04-06-2008, 11:58 PM   #27
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 Jvstice
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.
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-07-2008, 12:19 AM   #28
JCarter426
Senior Member
 
JCarter426's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Look to your left.
Posts: 1,636
This is where I point out that the President isn't supposed to have any say in who we go to war with.


JCarter426 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-07-2008, 12:32 AM   #29
Ravnas
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In ur oilfieldz drinking ur mi
Posts: 190
Oh we know, there're simply building new ideas on this new method of governing a constitutional republican government


Regrets are for horseshoes and handbags.

Last edited by Ravnas; 04-07-2008 at 12:43 AM.
Ravnas is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-07-2008, 01:00 AM   #30
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,053
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat
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.)


mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-07-2008, 01:13 AM   #31
Ravnas
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In ur oilfieldz drinking ur mi
Posts: 190
And if I know anything, Bush's influence will leave scars..err..marks 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


Regrets are for horseshoes and handbags.
Ravnas is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-07-2008, 01:13 AM   #32
SilentScope001
May The Force Serve You.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,236
Quote:
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.


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

Last edited by SilentScope001; 04-07-2008 at 01:23 AM.
SilentScope001 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-07-2008, 01:15 AM   #33
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
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.
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-07-2008, 02:02 AM   #34
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corinthian
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.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-07-2008, 02:16 AM   #35
Ravnas
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In ur oilfieldz drinking ur mi
Posts: 190
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.


Regrets are for horseshoes and handbags.
Ravnas is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-07-2008, 02:24 AM   #36
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 TK-8252
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.
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-07-2008, 02:34 AM   #37
JCarter426
Senior Member
 
JCarter426's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Look to your left.
Posts: 1,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravnas
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.


JCarter426 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-07-2008, 02:39 AM   #38
Q
The one who knocks
 
Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ABQ
Posts: 6,643
Current Game: Mowing down neos with my M60
LF Jester Forum Veteran Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
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. Welcome back!

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


"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.
Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."
-Toker
Q is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-07-2008, 02:42 AM   #39
Ravnas
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In ur oilfieldz drinking ur mi
Posts: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCarter426
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


Regrets are for horseshoes and handbags.
Ravnas is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-07-2008, 02:48 AM   #40
JCarter426
Senior Member
 
JCarter426's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Look to your left.
Posts: 1,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qliveur
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravnas
I stick with PBS,Stephen Colbert, and Jon Stewart for my news
Same here.


JCarter426 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 12:20 AM.

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