|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login | |
|
RE: Obama to invade Pakistan - 7/18/2008 5:20:51 PM
|
|
|
Leon_Figg3
Posts: 522
Joined: 4/24/2005
Status: offline
|
djv1255, Thank you for the link. I needed the laugh. I think if Obama is really serious about working together better with Europe, he needs to take a crash course on European history since WWI More spefically he needs to learn about the way the world has viewed Germany and our true relationship with Germany since WWII. He especially needs to learn about Berlin, and how Berlin's greatness would have ceased to exist long time ago if it wasn't for our military. It wasn't our ideas that safe guarded Berlin and made it what it has been over the decades, it was our military and our willingness to defend that city any way possible.
_____________________________
To whom much is given, much is expected. Luke 12:48
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama to invade Pakistan - 7/18/2008 7:20:06 PM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 1853
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Why are we not talking about this plan by "he who walks on water" to invade a friendly country, and how we have less of a reason to invade that country than we ever had, with Iraq, no matter how you have chosen to look at it? So why was Mushareff's dictatorship in Pakistan by coup better than any other military dictatorship that happened by coup? Next up it's pretty much common knowledge that Pakistan can't control AQ along the Afghanistan - Pakistan border. If you and other administration supporters want to trumpet around that Iraq was worth invading because of payoffs to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers (but the Saudis who did the same got a free pass) than why shouldn't going into Pakistan to chase down AQ and perhaps bin Laden be considered a no-no? I'm not saying I'm for or against an invasion of Pakistan. I'm trying to figure out why people who were so supportive of everything that this administration has done as far as wars, invasions, etc. will refuse to consider chasing down the organisation that WAS responsible for 9/11. What I am curious to know is what Berlin has to do with Pakistan?
_____________________________
-Roger 1 Thess 5:20 do not treat prophecies with contempt. 21 Test everything. Hold on to the good. (NIV)
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama to invade Pakistan - 7/18/2008 10:18:25 PM
|
|
|
Leon_Figg3
Posts: 522
Joined: 4/24/2005
Status: offline
|
rtj and TaoPoohBear, I do not mean to be personal, but you may better understand Conservatives, Republicans and me if you and others, who are so quick to judge, label, and assume how those of us who try to look at things realisticlly, will stop talking long enough to really listen and read what we say and what we write. It also may help if you would try studing history and learning from it instead of rewriting it as fast as it is made. Every situation, every country, at every point in history, needs to be dealt with separately, as conditions warrant, and as needed. We do not need to go into Pakistan and totally disrupt that country any further than it is already in order to hunt down one man who largely has out lived his importance, significance, and usefullness. Al Quada, and Bin Laden still exists, but they both reached their greatest successes with Afghanistan and 9/11. Our invasion of Afghanistan succeeded in cribbling the network and isolating Bin Laden. Bin Laden may still be in charge of the network, and the network may be gaining strength in some parts of the world, but it largely lacks a country that it can control, and give it safe haven. With Iraq out of the picture, they lack a country who may have been in place to support and arm them with vast amounts of money and just about every imaginable weapon. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, while home to Islamic extremists/ jhadists/ and their teachers they are pretty much able to be "contained" if we do not make a move to destablize their governments as they endeavor to deal with these people. Talk about bringing the people responsible for 9/11 to justice-Bin Laden- may be a good sound bite, especially to people who seem to see terrorism solely as a crime; it does not work well when those responsible see themselves at war with you, on an international scale.
_____________________________
To whom much is given, much is expected. Luke 12:48
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama to invade Pakistan - 7/18/2008 10:33:06 PM
|
|
|
Leon_Figg3
Posts: 522
Joined: 4/24/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TaoPoohBear Probably for the same reason they twist history to fit their political view; They're more interested in being good Conservative Republicans than responsible Americans. That's why they're running scared this election. TaoPoohBear, I would like to take exception with some of your comments but that will take the discussion way off topic. However, I can not let your comments go without making a comment or two. 1. I believe it is quite debatable who twists history the most to fit their political point of view. 2. I believe it is quite debatable who is running scared in this election year when the political parrty who believes they have this election all sewed up keeps discussion off the issues by implying that any disagreement with their candidate, or if their candidate looses, it will not be because of their candidate'sstand on the issues but because of race.
_____________________________
To whom much is given, much is expected. Luke 12:48
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama to invade Pakistan - 7/18/2008 10:33:29 PM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 1853
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I do not mean to be personal, but you may better understand Conservatives, Republicans and me if you and others, who are so quick to judge, label, and assume how those of us who try to look at things realisticlly, will stop talking long enough to really listen and read what we say and what we write. When you are called a True Liberal Islamo Fascist Satanist Commie than you can tell me about labels. No kidding that's what I have been called and others for committing the supreme sin of disagreeing with Dubya and his Neocon court of jesters. quote:
Every situation, every country, at every point in history, needs to be dealt with separately, as conditions warrant, and as needed. Precisely. quote:
Al Quada, and Bin Laden still exists, but they both reached their greatest successes with Afghanistan and 9/11. Our invasion of Afghanistan succeeded in cribbling the network and isolating Bin Laden. Bin Laden may still be in charge of the network, and the network may be gaining strength in some parts of the world, but it largely lacks a country that it can control, and give it safe haven. With Iraq out of the picture, they lack a country who may have been in place to support and arm them with vast amounts of money and just about every imaginable weapon. What on earth does Iraq have to do with any of this? That's my point. That is what is wrong with the entire WoT. Iraq had as much to do with 9/11 as Lilliput, Oz or Anvilania. They weren't going to control Iraq, they weren't getting weapons from Iraq this has been debunked every which way but loose. For the love of all that is holy show me where there was or was going to be an Iraq - bin Laden connection than please send your evidence to: The White House c/o The Dipsticks who looked at those 600,000+ Iraq documents and have spent 5+ years ripping through that country but found absolutely no credible evidence that Iraq and AQ were connected because I have proof in this envelope they were wrong! 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 I know I'm being a sarcastic smart alek but honeslty there has been no evidence found of an Iraq - Bin Laden connection. Now I'm not for or against an incursion into Pakistan. However I already said it and I'll say it again. For purposes of dealing with AQ going into Pakistan makes more sense than invading Iraq. We're not talking a march to Islamabad or anything just crossing the border to deal with AQ. If Islamabad doesn't deal with them what does that make them? Harborers of terrorists or not?
_____________________________
-Roger 1 Thess 5:20 do not treat prophecies with contempt. 21 Test everything. Hold on to the good. (NIV)
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama to invade Pakistan - 7/18/2008 11:10:18 PM
|
|
|
Leon_Figg3
Posts: 522
Joined: 4/24/2005
Status: offline
|
Can we PLEASE get away, and stay away from the name calling and insults, not only in regard to one another but those responsiblle for our security and apparently (whether we Americans like it or not) the stability of the whole world country by country. Whether or not a connection, of any kind, could be proven between Iraq and AQ, before the invasion, is immaterial at this opoint. The fact is that, real or imagined, the possibly, by any stretch of the imagination back then (which we were largely dealing with at the time since no one in Iraq was willing to prove it/ disprove it to any degree) existed. That possibility, especially in light of the hostile stance that Saddam (and through him his country) had taken, had to be dealt with. We have no such issue to deal with in Pakistan, at this time. What do you think will happen, in Pakistan, once our foroces cross into it? Our action will (most likely) destabilize that government and the country. It WILL cause the very thing that people have been claiming the Bush administration has been doing through our actions in Iraq. It will cause the very thing we are trying to avoid. AQ/ Bin Laden or not, we have absolutely no "justifable"/ "just" reason to invade Pakistan. You say you are neither for, nor agaist such action. I wonder. If you could justify the invasion of Pakistan in any way, then you need to make a public apology to the president, the military, and everyone that has seen the war in Iraq as being necessary. Just like Iraq you are basing your decision, and your support for such action on possibilities that can not be proven, one way or another. We apparently have absolutely no idea where Bin Laden is. We have absolutely no confirmable idea why Pakistan is unable to locate and apprehend Bin Laden other than the area he is believed to be in is very hostile in more ways than one.
< Message edited by Leon_Figg3 -- 7/18/2008 11:39:57 PM >
_____________________________
To whom much is given, much is expected. Luke 12:48
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama to invade Pakistan - 7/19/2008 10:34:45 AM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 1853
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
You say you are neither for, nor agaist such action. I wonder. Why would I be for? Because that is where AQ is. Why would I be against? Take your reasons for being against but tone it down some. I don't think violating their territory would bring about their collapse as you say but it would cause some problems enough that I am not for an invasion. Your example is probably the worst case scenario but still a possible scenario. I don't think your worst case scenario is probable but it isn't impossible. As far as where is AQ basing? Well according to the Afghani government in Pakistan: quote:
The head of US spying operations says the leaders of al-Qaeda have found a secure hideout in Pakistan from where they are rebuilding their strength. National Intelligence Director John Negroponte said al-Qaeda was strengthening its ties across the Middle East, North Africa and Europe. Afghanistan has welcomed the comments. President Hamid Karzai's chief-of-staff, Jawed Ludin, told the BBC that Afghanistan had long maintained that the Islamic militants operated from within Pakistan, and that Mr Negroponte's statement was refreshing in its honesty. (emphasis mine) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6254375.stm According to US intelligence in Pakistan: quote:
WASHINGTON — Late last year, top Bush administration officials decided to take a step they had long resisted. They drafted a secret plan to make it easier for the Pentagon’s Special Operations forces to launch missions into the snow-capped mountains of Pakistan to capture or kill top leaders of Al Qaeda. Intelligence reports for more than a year had been streaming in about Osama bin Laden’s terrorism network rebuilding in the Pakistani tribal areas, a problem that had been exacerbated by years of missteps in Washington and the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, sharp policy disagreements, and turf battles between American counterterrorism agencies. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/washington/30tribal.html?hp This isn't about bringing bin Laden to justice as it is about putting an end to AQ. As long as AQ can rebuild freely in Afghanistan which is now the case this will never end. Can we contain them there? I don't know. How do you suggest they be dealt with?
_____________________________
-Roger 1 Thess 5:20 do not treat prophecies with contempt. 21 Test everything. Hold on to the good. (NIV)
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama to invade Pakistan - 7/19/2008 11:00:54 AM
|
|
|
TaoPoohBear
Posts: 317
Joined: 1/18/2008
Status: offline
|
O.K. Let's start with what was said - quote:
Mr Obama said yesterday that he wanted to secure the border, adding: “We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones.” He reiterated that the US forces should be ready to cross into Pakistan without permission “to take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights”. - secure the border - cross without permission - take out high-level terrorist targets (I don't see invade or hunt for Bin Laden) "Alex, I'll take Attacking Terrorists for $500." He said - Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. "Who is President Bush" "Alex, I'll take American War History for $200." In 1970 & 1971, these two country's leaders were NOT displeased with U.S. attacks on their soil. "What are Cambodia and Laos" "Alex, I'll take American War History for $300." Until 2008 this one man was the major obstacle in destroying Al Qaeda, perhaps deliberately to wield great powers. "Who is Pervez Musharraf " "Alex, I'll take Attacking Terrorists for $100." Speaking with Senators, he said - I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. Who is President George W. Bush" (in 2001) Everybody clear on this?! Obama wants to do what we couldn't (or wouldn't) do in 2002. Unlike Nixon, the American people would be behind him. Unlike Bush, he would be dealing with an elected Pakistani government that might just welcome the help eliminating extremism.
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama to invade Pakistan - 7/19/2008 11:08:25 AM
|
|
|
Leon_Figg3
Posts: 522
Joined: 4/24/2005
Status: offline
|
How would I deal with it? 1. Recognize that the elimination of AQ will not mean the end of Islamic extremism, or jhadist beliefs. From what this average person is able to understand and know, AQ is the name of the terrorist network put together by Bin Laden and other like minded people of intelligence, wealth and power. The elimination of Bin Laden and AQ, as you indicate, would only be a temporary set back. Sooner or latter it would be replaced and possibly be even made stronger and more determined. 2. Recognize that there are countries in the Middle East, and Near East whose governments are sincerely trying to deal with the threat of Islamic extremists in their country as they seek to modernize their countries. As a result, those governments may indeed be easily toppled by Islamic extremists in response to ANY unilateral military action taken by us. Pakistan is one of the key centers of extremist/ jhadist belief and education. 3. Continue to deal with the threat of Islamic extremism and the like on a global basis by addressing those issues that seem to, and tend to feed Islamic extremism. a. Address instances of terrorism by jhadist and Islamic extremists as acts of war, not solely as criminal acts. b. Continue to work with other countries, on a number of levels of security in efforts to prevent acts of terrorism and mininmize the threat. c. Help moderate Moslems gain a greater voice in the public forum as well as their communities and schools.
< Message edited by Leon_Figg3 -- 7/19/2008 11:23:35 AM >
_____________________________
To whom much is given, much is expected. Luke 12:48
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama to invade Pakistan - 7/19/2008 11:21:32 AM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 1853
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline
|
1) I believe you are correct. Should we ignore those groups that exist or should we deal with them as they make their faces shown? 2) This is also correct. However 3A would cause problems. What do you do if the next big terrorist thing comes out of Saudi Arabia? Or even Pakistan? What if AQ's current leadership manages to pull something off being bottled up in Pakistan now- not impossible with the internet and enough sympathetic people in the region. How do you fight such a war- invade Pakistan? Invade Saudi Arabia? 3 B We're already doing in many countries. 3 C how would we do that?
_____________________________
-Roger 1 Thess 5:20 do not treat prophecies with contempt. 21 Test everything. Hold on to the good. (NIV)
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama to invade Pakistan - 7/19/2008 11:29:18 AM
|
|
|
Leon_Figg3
Posts: 522
Joined: 4/24/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rlj 1) I believe you are correct. Should we ignore those groups that exist or should we deal with them as they make their faces shown? 2) This is also correct. However 3A would cause problems. What do you do if the next big terrorist thing comes out of Saudi Arabia? Or even Pakistan? What if AQ's current leadership manages to pull something off being bottled up in Pakistan now- not impossible with the internet and enough sympathetic people in the region. How do you fight such a war- invade Pakistan? Invade Saudi Arabia? 3 B We're already doing in many countries. 3 C how would we do that? Those are the 100 trillion dollar questions. There are no easy answers to any of those questions. That is what makes this GWoT so difficult, and why it will last so long.
_____________________________
To whom much is given, much is expected. Luke 12:48
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama to invade Pakistan - 7/19/2008 11:38:15 AM
|
|
|
TaoPoohBear
Posts: 317
Joined: 1/18/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Leon_Figg3 How would I deal with it? 1. Recognize that the elimination of AQ will not mean the end of Islamic extremism, or jhadist beliefs. From what this average person is able to understand and know, AQ is the name of the terrorist network put together by Bin Laden and other like minded people of intelligence, wealth and power. The elimination of Bin Laden and AQ, as you indicate, would only be a temporary set back. Sooner or latter it would be replaced and possibly be even made stronger and more determined. 2. Recognize that there are countries in the Middle East, and Near East whose governments are sincerely trying to deal with the threat of Islamic extremists in their country as they seek to modernize their countries. As a result, those governments may indeed be easily toppled by Islamic extremists in response to any unilateral military action taken by us. 3. Continue to deal with the threat of Islamic extremism and the like on a global basis by addressing those issues that seem to, and tend to feed Islamic extremism. a. Address instances of terrorism by jhadist and Islamic extremists as acts of war, not solely as criminal acts. b. Continue to work with other countries, on a number of levels of security in efforts to prevent acts of terrorism and mininmize the threat. c. Help moderate Moslems gain a greater voice in the public forum as well as their communities and schools. You can not reconcile #2 & #3a. Hostile acts from an organization must have a point of origin. It all sounds warm and fuzzy, but destroying the Al Qaeda organization utterly & completly (something we have yet to try) at it's point of origin will have a chilling effect on other groups and the countries who tolerate them. If terrorism is an act of war, then a country who is the point of origin must be given a carrot and a stick - help us kill them or we'll help ourselves. This point was NEVER driven home to the Saudis, but it was to the Iranians. Guess what? Iran helped! quote:
According to U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan James Dobbins, Iran played a "decisive role" in persuading the Northern Alliance delegate to compromise. Dobbins also recalls how the Iranians insisted on including language in the Bonn agreement on the war on terrorism. The bureaucracy recognized that there was an opportunity to work with Iran not only on stabilizing Afghanistan but on al-Qaeda as well. As reported by the Washington Post on Oct. 22, 2004, the State Department's policy planning staff had written a paper in late November 2001 suggesting that the United States should propose more formal arrangements for cooperation with Iran on fighting al-Qaeda. That would have involved exchanging intelligence information with Tehran as well as coordinating border sweeps to capture al-Qaeda fighters and leaders who were already beginning to move across the border into Pakistan and Iran. The CIA agreed with the proposal, according to the Post's sources, as did the head of the White House Office for Combating Terrorism, retired Gen. Wayne A. Downing. BUT quote:
Investigative journalist Bob Woodward's book Plan of Attack recounts that Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley, who chaired an interagency committee on Iran policy dealing with issues surrounding Afghanistan, learned that the White House intended to include Iran as a member of the "axis of evil" in Bush's State of the Union message in January. By the end of December, Hadley had decided, against the recommendations of the State Department, CIA, and White House counter-terrorism office, that the United States would not share any information with Iran on al-Qaeda, even though it would press the Iranians for such intelligence. Soon after that decision, hardliners presented Iranian policy to Bush and the public as hostile to U.S. aims in Afghanistan and refusing to cooperate with the war on terror – the opposite of what officials directly involved had witnessed. How Neocons Sabotaged Iran's Help on al-Qaeda
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama to invade Pakistan - 7/19/2008 12:04:13 PM
|
|
|
Leon_Figg3
Posts: 522
Joined: 4/24/2005
Status: offline
|
TaoPoohBear, I do not particularly care for long posts that involve cuting and pasting post after post so I will address two points that you brought up. 1. A terrorist attack must have a point of orgin-a country. Where exactly was the home of origin for the 9/11 attack? Most of the people involved were from Saudi Arabia. The man responsible for formulating the plan was from some other country I do not remember, off the top of my head right now. Bin Laden was in Afghanistan and merely approved and gave the green light for the plan. The ideology, and financal support for the plan behind the attack may be found in just about every country throughout the world that has a any degree of Moslem population. 2. The eleimination of a terroist group or network does not make terrorists more hesitant to start up again. It just makes them more careful, more patient, and more determined (ie Palestian-Israeli conflict) 3. Iran Maybe we already had good reason not to totally trust the Iranians with any information we may have given them. Only histroy will judge whether that was a mistake or not. Whatever happened to the arguement that America is not to be the policeman of the world? Are we suppose to use our position and might in the worlld to dictate to everyone else how to deal with their internal affairs or not? Maybe, before we take any unilateral military action anywhere, we need to address this question and settle it once and for all.
< Message edited by Leon_Figg3 -- 7/19/2008 12:17:21 PM >
_____________________________
To whom much is given, much is expected. Luke 12:48
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama to invade Pakistan - 7/19/2008 1:03:11 PM
|
|
|
TaoPoohBear
Posts: 317
Joined: 1/18/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Leon_Figg3 Whatever happened to the arguement that America is not to be the policeman of the world? Are we suppose to use our position and might in the worlld to dictate to everyone else how to deal with their internal affairs or not? Maybe, before we take any unilateral military action anywhere, we need to address this question and settle it once and for all. Agreed! I used to feel very strongly that we were NOT the world's policeman! I'd still like to see that, but events seem to gotten in the way. As to your 1st point, I believe Afghanistan was first considered the point of origin by CIA then confirmed by the 9/11 Commission - quote:
The idea for the September 11 plot came from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who first presented the idea to bin Laden in 1996. At that point, Bin Laden and al-Qaeda were in a period of transition, having just relocated back to Afghanistan from Sudan. A series of meetings occurred in spring of 1999, involving Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Osama bin Laden, and his deputy Mohammed Atef. Bin Laden provided leadership for the plot, along with financial support. Bin Laden was also involved in selecting people to participate in the plot, including choosing Mohamed Atta as the lead hijacker. As many as 27 members of al-Qaeda attempted to enter the United State Wikipedia #2 - Beg to disagree, so would Jordan, Syria & Egypt (and sometimes Lebanon). In country, the Israelis have attacked terrorists more "retail" than "wholesale"; neighboring countries have learned (the hard way) they are responsible for "their" terrorists. Israeli attacks on terrorists in Lebanon have been decidedly "wholesale". It could be argued that Syria (Golan Heights), Egypt (Sinai) & Jordan (West Bank) were prime examples of Israel's "wholesale" approach to combating terrorism. #3 - We will probably never, ever agree on Iran. If the U.S. (or Israel) attacks them before the year is out then all of our opinions get thrown out the window anyway.
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama to invade Pakistan - 7/19/2008 1:12:49 PM
|
|
|
TaoPoohBear
Posts: 317
Joined: 1/18/2008
Status: offline
|
I would add that attacking the point of origin of a terrorist network involved in a attack on the U.S. does send a message to the "home" country of the terrorists. I believe the United States has a long history all the way back to the Barbary pirates in 1801 of going after threats where ever they may be; And countries know this.
|
|
|
|
New Messages |
No New Messages |
Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
Locked w/ New Messages |
Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|