Obama - Pakistan

I guess all of the aid that the Bush administration gave to the Pakistani government was pretty much wasted.

 

I have several observations...

1. The war is not working as currently being fought and there is no end in site.

2. We would be hypocrites for invading Iraq if we allow any Taliban sect a safe haven anywhere on the planet.

3. To end this war we must engage the enemy. The theory is we must engage them where they live to avoid fighting them where we live.

4. We invalidate the lives of all soldiers who died in this war if we honor "safe haven's" boundaries.

5. Pakistan becomes guilty of harboring terrorist and enemies of the US by making an agreement of this type.

6. Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani is scheduled to meet with the Obama administration, I think we should wait for this meeting to make judgments.

7. About 3,000 Taliban militants have been keeping 12,000 Pakistani government troops at bay. Either their hearts are not in it or they are not an army capable of controlling this situation on their own. Either way, so we can end this thing in the foreseeable future, I say let's do what it takes to bring our troops home victoriously.

 

Why do you feel the need to bash President Bush all the time? The post said nothing about previous aid or relations. It simply asked if we thought we would invade another country.

In regards the OP, I think we need to go after the taliban and any who aid them.

 

On this I agree with Ken. We gave a Pakistan government, who overthrew a democratically elected administration, billions of dollars, borrowed from China, while losing thousands of young men & women trying to install a democracy in Iraq.

It hardly makes sense.

 

I wonder if Ken will agree that our actions in the last year have contributed to these developments ?

 

I think Pakistan needs to be dealt with through CIA-type surgical strikes. Not only has Iraq shown that an attack is not necessarily effective we simply can't afford it. Also, unless we pull out of Iraq we don't have the soldiers to mount another attack unless we resort to the draft.

Besides, Pakistan has nuclear weapons. We can't invade them without risking serious repercussions.

 

I hope Obama does not let this happen.

If the Taliban should take this opportunity to seize Pakistan's nuclear arsenal where do you think they will aim them?
While it is unlikely that Pakistan's arsenal is capable of reaching us from there, it would not be such a hard thing for them to strike Iraq or other near by US presence.

 

Will you support Obama's draft ?

 

WOW !!!

Now the anti-Bush crowd that couldn't stop protesting George Bush's "illegal" and "unjust" war in Iraq (which the Congress authorized) are all for Obama bombing and invading where ever he sees fit !!

The same crowd that protested and still protests the detention at Gitmo of terrorist suspects captured on the battlefield now agrees with bombing and killing at will any people who aren't helping us by capturing or killing other (maybe or maybe not) terrorist suspects !!

Looney Left doesn't even come close to describing this mindset.

 

Talk about dishonest, you right-winger's just don't know how to be truthful.

You should be grateful that President Obama is willing to fight the terrorists where they are, not in Iraq, where Bush wanted to invade.

It is hypocritical to now be against anything Obama does in regard to fighting terrorism, when just a few years ago we couldn't invade Iraq quick enough!

 

If the US was honest it should declare war on Pakistan if "we" wish to invade Pakistan with troops and/or drones.

 

I'm confused. Could you please tell me what was "dishonest" in my post?

Could you please indicate for me which words in my post says that I am "against anything Obama does in regard to fighting terrorism" or that I thought that "we couldn't invade Iraq quick enough"?

Of course I full well know that you will not be able to do either of the above...

Which is why you chose to call me "dishonest" and "just don't know how to be truthful".

Your misdirection and personal attacks merely demonstrate to me your inability to directly adress the issue.

I can very well understand your inablity to do so.

 

I was speaking of right-wingers in general. I should have worded my posting more clearly. Sorry.

 

Showing the liberal hypocrisy is quite honest and difficult to defend so they just try to redirect. They supported Clinton over Iraq, opposed Bush, now they support Obama. It is all about demonization of a Republican President. Of course Obama can do no wrong.

 

I suppose you would invade Canada too?
Why would the US invade one of its closest allies in the war against terror?
Pakistan has stood right beside the US in the fight against terrorism, even allowing them to use their airspace (which they didn't have to do), allowing them to use their soil for access into Afghanistan where the real Al-Qaida and Taliban operatives are. Why are you so set on attacking your allies. No wonder the world perceives America as the big bad bully of the world!

 

I am very curious about the thought processes of one who believes that holding terror supects captured on the battlefield is wrong but bombing people from the air and thus killing them is o.k.

Were the terror suspects killed by the bombing raids read their rights, charged, provided a lawyer and tried first?

Cognitive dissonance.

 

I am not curious at all. There are those who are very consistent with regards to war issues. And then their are those, like some on this board, who are inconsistent and do not know how to be. They only want Obama to be right no matter what he does. And then there is Obama who is trying to make people think he knows what he is doing.

 

Then there are those who admonish us to follow his way of peace and not war, unless it's a democrat in power.

And no democrat, or liberal, on this board, has ever even tried to address the half million dead Iraqis under Clinton & Gore.