TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Obama wants to send troop to Pakistan
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Obama wants to send troop to Pakistan

post #1 of 45
Thread Starter 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070801/...ma_terrorism_7


Now, THAT would really open a can of worms. The Pakistani President is hanging on by a thread now. I can just imagine what would happen to him if troops went into Pakistan.
post #2 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070801/...ma_terrorism_7


Now, THAT would really open a can of worms. The Pakistani President is hanging on by a thread now. I can just imagine what would happen to him if troops went into Pakistan.
I agree... that's most likely the worst action that can be taken in that region. Perhaps we should get the UN involved first......


EDIT: :::GASP::::: We just agreed!
post #3 of 45
Taliban and al Qaida operators are using Pakistan as a safe haven, and it doesn't appear that Musharraf is in control of Pakistani intelligence or many military units. If he is, he's dragging his feet in order to remain in power. Perhaps the threat of U.S. military action will force more action.

Obama isn't in a position to push any sort of military intervention in Pakistan, but raising the specter of it isn't a bad ploy.
post #4 of 45
Makes a lot more sense than invading Iraq and staying for four years.
post #5 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post
Makes a lot more sense than invading Iraq and staying for four years.
One comment: Yup!
post #6 of 45
post #7 of 45
I went "huh?" when I heard that on the news. What is he trying to do? He's coming across (to me at least) of scattering his shot in all directions, hoping to hit something (politically speaking, not militarily.) I don't know.....I need to find out more. Doesn't seem to be something someone who opposes the war as strongly as he does would say. And yet, he's got a point about Pakistan. And yet again, you have to respect a nation's sovereignty, even at the cost of letting bin Laden get away. I don't know.....confusing, troubling. He's also coming across as increasingly fractious, which is NOT doing his image any good.
post #8 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post
Makes a lot more sense than invading Iraq and staying for four years.
errr, what? not in any sense of the word does it make sense.
post #9 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
errr, what? not in any sense of the word does it make sense.
The people who actually attacked us on 9/11 and threaten to do it again are in Pakistan. They are slowly sending the lower levels over to fight us in Iraq, to train them and let them get first blood against westerners.

It makes sense to go after Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is in Pakistan. Therefore, it makes sense to strategically bomb Pakistan.

Sort of like Clinton did when he went after Bin Laden the first time, before the republicans all accused him of trying to attract attention away from Whitewater.

Anyway, I didn't say I would necessarily agree with a wholesale invasion of Pakistan, but I would disagree with it a whole of a lot less than I do the invasion of Iraq which hasn't done a darn thing but play into Al-Qaeda's hands.
post #10 of 45
Thread Starter 
When did Clinton EVER go after Osama Bin Laden? I must have missed that.
Osama was offered up on a silver platter to Clinton and he refused him from what I have heard. Didn't Clinton's "people" say they didn't have enought evidence to take Osama? (Guess the USS Cole wasn't enough evidence)

Are you kidding me. People saying we should go into Pakistan and NO mention of the UN. Tsk, tsk.

I'm not a big fan of Pakistan's President either but he is much better than the extremist Muslim faction that wants to take over Pakistan. Hasn't there been numerous assassination attempts on his life by people that want to turn Pakistan into an extreme Islamic state?

And if you bomb Pakistan there will be civilian casualties, what about that?

I don't like empty threats, if you are going to "threaten" you better be ready to back it up with action if you ever want anyone to respect or believe you again. Especially. if you are President of the most powerful nation on Earth.

Personally, I think Obama's posturing is very reckless.
post #11 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
Obama isn't in a position to push any sort of military intervention in Pakistan, but raising the specter of it isn't a bad ploy.
As long as he isn't wearing a Speedo, I'm perfectly fine with his suggestion.
post #12 of 45
Thread Starter 
Lunasmom is OBSESSED with speedo's.
post #13 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Lunasmom is OBSESSED with speedo's.
more no one wearing Speedos
post #14 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post
The people who actually attacked us on 9/11 and threaten to do it again are in Pakistan. They are slowly sending the lower levels over to fight us in Iraq, to train them and let them get first blood against westerners.

It makes sense to go after Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is in Pakistan. Therefore, it makes sense to strategically bomb Pakistan.

Sort of like Clinton did when he went after Bin Laden the first time, before the republicans all accused him of trying to attract attention away from Whitewater.

Anyway, I didn't say I would necessarily agree with a wholesale invasion of Pakistan, but I would disagree with it a whole of a lot less than I do the invasion of Iraq which hasn't done a darn thing but play into Al-Qaeda's hands.
well, this is not just about al qaeda but also about support of terror, IRAQ did support it, they had to go. Besides now you know where AL-qaeda is and they are not hard to find. I mean really how many times do you need to see the reports saying the peopel fighitng in iraq most of the time are from outside of Iraq? But all we hear form Dems is give up give up give up give up.

Bin Laden for the most part now is a non issue. To catch him would be more of a feel good thing. bin laden did not come with or plane that attacks he supplied the money. Most of which he has been cut off from. If he is even still alive. nothing new has been seen. The last release was a old tape. The statements made to attack pakistan, make no sense at all. WE ALREADY have permission from the gover of pakistan to go after targets there if we need to, and they have allowed attacks already. Plus how much you want to bet there US troops on the ground in the hills there already.

Pakistan support of terror is not from the goverment(at least not what i have seen). but hey lets make pakistan more unstable, if you really want to attack a nation that at least has been helping us in that area of the world.

and yes cliton turned down several attempts to kill Bin Laden, all he ever did was send a few missles at a camp, that eveyrone told him was empty.

i will say again, THAT makes no sense.
post #15 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by lunasmom View Post
more no one wearing Speedos
depends on who is in the speedo
post #16 of 45
Well said Bruce

in a side note...i don't think i want to see ANY politicians in a speedo
post #17 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
well, this is not just about al qaeda but also about support of terror, IRAQ did support it, they had to go. Besides now you know where AL-qaeda is and they are not hard to find. I mean really how many times do you need to see the reports saying the peopel fighitng in iraq most of the time are from outside of Iraq? But all we hear form Dems is give up give up give up give up.

Bin Laden for the most part now is a non issue. To catch him would be more of a feel good thing. bin laden did not come with or plane that attacks he supplied the money. Most of which he has been cut off from. If he is even still alive. nothing new has been seen. The last release was a old tape. The statements made to attack pakistan, make no sense at all. WE ALREADY have permission from the gover of pakistan to go after targets there if we need to, and they have allowed attacks already. Plus how much you want to bet there US troops on the ground in the hills there already.

Pakistan support of terror is not from the goverment(at least not what i have seen). but hey lets make pakistan more unstable, if you really want to attack a nation that at least has been helping us in that area of the world.

and yes cliton turned down several attempts to kill Bin Laden, all he ever did was send a few missles at a camp, that eveyrone told him was empty.

i will say again, THAT makes no sense.
Exactly like I said-- the people fighting in Iraq are not usually from Iraq. Meaning, they came there to fight us after we invaded. Meaning, they had no support originally from Iraq. bin Laden viewed Saddam Hussein as an infidel, a disgrace.

How odd that you'd say bin Laden isn't worth going after. 9/11 was him. The earlier bombing on the WTC was him. The bombing of some of our overseas embassies was him. What does he have to do to become an issue? Who, by your definition, could possibly be worthy of going after???

Just because a puppet government says we can do whatever doesn't mean we actually can. And we definitely aren't. We don't even have Afghanistan under control. The Taliban JUST executed people last week, but nobody seems to care, they're too concerned with defending the murder and exploitation of innocent people in Iraq.

As for Clinton and bin Laden, it's painfully apparent that some of you are into propaganda and not into remembering things that happened not so long ago.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm

If someone failed to react to the USS Cole, it was your golden boy Bushy.
post #18 of 45
Thread Starter 
It is the terrorists that are "exploiting and murdering innocent people" in Iraq.
I think to say that our military is doing the above is so unfair to our military.

I have never seen anything that Clinton went after Osama. IMO, all Clinton did was embolden the terrorists.
post #19 of 45
Thread Starter 
I read the link, it was just as I thought. EXCUSES by the Clinton Administration of WHY they did not do squat about all the killings of Americans abroad. They blamed the Saudi's, they blame Yemen.
I notice Bush did not let any excuses keep him from going into Afghanistan.
IMO, Clinton and his administration were a bunch of wimps and their INACTION ultimately led to 9-11
post #20 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I read the link, it was just as I thought. EXCUSES by the Clinton Administration of WHY they did not do squat about all the killings of Americans abroad. They blamed the Saudi's, they blame Yemen.
From the article you read:
Quote:
In August 1998, President Clinton ordered missile strikes against targets in Afghanistan in an effort to hit Osama bin Laden, who had been linked to the embassy bombings in Africa (and was later connected to the attack on the USS Cole). The missiles reportedly missed bin Laden by a few hours, and Clinton was widely criticized by many who claimed he had ordered the strikes primarily to draw attention away from the Monica Lewinsky scandal
Oh, and it wasn't Clinton blaming anyone else, that was the author of articles stating the facts.
post #21 of 45
Thread Starter 
On 13 November 1995, a bomb was set off in a van parked in front of an American-run military training center in the Saudi Arabian capital of Riyadh, killing five Americans and two Indians. Saudi Arabian authorities arrested four Saudi nationals whom they claim confessed to the bombings, but U.S. officials were denied permission to see or question the suspects before they were convicted and beheaded in May 1996.

The Saudi's "Claim" they confessed.

On 25 June 1996, a booby-trapped truck loaded with 5,000 pounds of explosives was exploded outside the Khobar Towers apartment complex which housed United States military personnel in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing nineteen Americans and wounding about three hundred others. Once again, the U.S. investigation was hampered by the refusal of Saudi officials to allow the FBI to question suspects.
On 21 June 2001, just before the American statute of limitations would have expired, a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, indicted thirteen Saudis and an unidentified Lebanese chemist for the Khobar Towers bombing. The suspects remain in Saudi custody, beyond the reach of the American justice system. (Saudi Arabia has no extradition treaty with the U.S.)

Excuses, it's the "Saudi's fault"




On 12 October 2000, two suicide bombers detonated an explosives-laden skiff next to the USS Cole while it was refueling in Aden, Yemen, blasting a hole in the ship that killed 17 sailors and injured 37 others. No suspects have yet been arrested or indicted. The investigation has been hampered by the refusal of Yemini officials to allow FBI agents access to Yemeni nationals and other suspects in custody in Yemen.

It's Yemen's fault, another excuse




In August 1998, when [Clinton] ordered missile strikes in an effort to kill Osama bin Laden, there was widespread speculation — from such people as Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) — that he was acting precipitously to draw attention away from the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, then at full boil. Some said he was mistaken for personalizing the terrorism struggle so much around bin Laden. And when he ordered the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in front
. . . the federal budget on anti-terror activities tripled during Clinton's watch, to about $6.7 billion. After the effort to kill bin Laden with missiles in August 1998 failed — he had apparently left a training camp in Afghanistan a few hours earlier — recent news reports have detailed numerous other instances, as late as December 2000, when Clinton was on the verge of unleashing the military again. In each case, the White House chose not to act because of uncertainty that intelligence was good enough to find bin Laden, and concern that a failed attack would only enhance his stature in the Arab world.

Another excuse
post #22 of 45
So now Snopes has a liberal bias? Those are reasons that nobody decided to go bombing other countries. They are excuses sent out by his administration.

Once again, with only 3 months left in office and 2 of those after Bush had already been 'elected' it seems like the lack of retaliation is more Bush's fault than Clinton's. You know, Bush, who said he would have nothing to do with the Middle East for his entire presidency, that he would ignore it.

Huh.

Are you at least going to admit that Clinton did go after bin Laden? I mean, he tried to bomb him and missed by a few hours-- significantly better than Bush has EVER done.
post #23 of 45
Thread Starter 
Better than Bush has done? I don't think so, Bush took down Al-Queda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

And yes, there ARE still problems in Afghanistan. There will ALWAYS be problems wherever those freaks are.

Bush didn't take 3 months to go into Afghanistan after 9-11.

But then everything is Bush's fault, even stuff that happened on Clinton's
watch.
post #24 of 45
Thread Starter 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070802...tanafghanistan

Pakistan's reaction to Obama's threat.
post #25 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Better than Bush has done? I don't think so, Bush took down Al-Queda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Bush didn't take 3 months to go into Afghanistan after 9-11.

But then everything is Bush's fault, even stuff that happened on Clinton's
watch.
Let's see... Bush hasn't taken down Al-Qaeda or the Taliban yet.

9/11 was a completely incomparable event. No one can speculate that ANY president would not have gone to Afghanistan just as quickly. I mean, it was sort of a given.

I don't think there was necessarily much reason to do much more than Clinton did after the USS Cole, and my point stands: you're always freaking out about the USS Cole and Clinton not invading someone over it, but Bush apparently didn't want to either.
post #26 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
.....recent news reports have detailed numerous other instances, as late as December 2000, when Clinton was on the verge of unleashing the military again. In each case, the White House chose not to act because of uncertainty that intelligence was good enough to find bin Laden, and concern that a failed attack would only enhance his stature in the Arab world.

Another excuse
And a d---ed good one, too, for not acting. Our intelligence in the Middle East has been really, really poor. To wit - "weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." Now if Bush had taken a page from Clinton's manual, we wouldn't be stuck in this wasteful war. Acting rashly on uncertain intelligence always courts a good possibility of failure. Think Carter and "Desert One."
post #27 of 45
Thread Starter 
The last I heard the Taliban did not control Afghanistan anymore. Did that change? And if not, WHY is the Taliban not in control of Afghanistan anymore. It couldn't have anything to do with us.
post #28 of 45
Does this sound to you as if the situation in Afghanistan is under control?

U.S. dead in Afghanistan: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/fallen/afghanistan/
U.S. & Coalition casualties: http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2004/oef.casualties/
21 South Korean hostages still being held by the Taliban: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/fron.../03/2003372471
There's also a German engineer being held. Another was killed, as were two South Korean hostages.

Bush and Karzai are meeting this weekend to discuss the insurgency: http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle...095973BE7.html
Quote:
Richard Boucher, the U.S. undersecretary of state for South and Central Asia, told reporters on August 2 that the planning session at the Camp David retreat outside Washington will address how best to confront the resurgent Taliban, and may also include Iran's role in Afghanistan.
post #29 of 45
Thread Starter 
Yes, people die in War.
post #30 of 45
The Taliban are getting more powerful than ever in Afghanistan. The last you heard? Where are your sources - another 6-year-old article from Fox news? And, um, Al-Qaeda taken down? WHAT???
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Obama wants to send troop to Pakistan