Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: Pakistan: A bigger problem than Iraq and Iran combined

  1. #1
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,424
    Post Thanks / Like

    Pakistan: A bigger problem than Iraq and Iran combined

    [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/world/asia/24pstan.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin"]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/world/asia/24pstan.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin[/URL]

    [QUOTE]Pakistan is in a leaderless drift four months after elections, according to Western diplomats and military officials, Pakistani politicians and Afghan officials who are increasingly worried that no one is really in charge....
    The sense of drift is the subject of almost every columnist in the English-language press in Pakistan, and anxiety over the lack of leadership and the weakness of the civilian government now infuses conversations with analysts, diplomats and Pakistani government officials.
    The problem is most acute, they say, when it comes to dealing with militants in the tribal areas that have become home to the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
    Although the political parties and the military all seek a breather from the suicide bombings and nascent insurgency that have roiled Pakistan in recent years, there are fundamental disagreements over the problem of militancy that they have not begun to address, Pakistani politicians and Western diplomats say.
    The confusion is allowing the militants to consolidate their sanctuaries while spreading their tentacles all along the border area, military officials and diplomats warn. It has also complicated policy for the Bush administration, which leaned heavily on one man, President Pervez Musharraf, to streamline its antiterrorism efforts in Pakistan.[/QUOTE]

    It's becoming pretty obvious to me that Western Pakistan will be the next spot American troops are sent to.
    There is no leadership in that country and the military is making deals with the militants.
    This is a country that possesses the knowledge to make nuclear weapons
    [B][U]Our idiotic interventionist government sends over $5 billion in aid to this sh*thole government. BEAM ME UP[/U][/B]

  2. #2
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,279
    Post Thanks / Like
    Pakistan is the most dangerous place in the world right now, by far.

    It as a corrupt, inept, unpopular and possibly unstable government that is unwilling to crack down on terrorists or secure its borders and, by the way, has nuclear weapons. (Lately, a new wrinkle: Militants on the Pakistan side of the Afghan border have been attacking NATO bases.)

    This should be a bigger issue in the campaign than it has been thus far.

  3. #3
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,739
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JetsCrazey;2599334]Western Pakistan will be the next spot American troops are sent to.[/QUOTE]

    Wait, I thought Bush was going to Invade Iran befroe he leaves office?

    Man, I am so confused......

  4. #4
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,424
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2599364]Wait, I thought Bush was going to Invade Iran befroe he leaves office?

    Man, I am so confused......[/QUOTE]

    If that's the case, time for me to move to Canada before the draft comes back

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    6,890
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2599358]Pakistan is the most dangerous place in the world right now, by far.

    It as a corrupt, inept, unpopular and possibly unstable government that is unwilling to crack down on terrorists or secure its borders and, by the way, has nuclear weapons. (Lately, a new wrinkle: Militants on the Pakistan side of the Afghan border have been attacking NATO bases.)

    This should be a bigger issue in the campaign than it has been thus far.[/QUOTE]

    No doubt about it. 25K more US Marines have been deployed in Afghanistan after leaving Iraq. Many of the US Marines in Afghan are fresh from the bitter, fierce and brutal fighting in Anwar Province.

    A few were killed last week in the prison break. That border is so hot right now with no thoughts of cooling off anytime soon.

    This area should get more attention. I think Barack mentioned that he would chase AQ if they went over there.

    This place will only get worse over the next few months.

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    6,890
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JetsCrazey;2599374]If that's the case, time for me to move to Canada before the draft comes back[/QUOTE]

    Hey, no one leaves here alive anyway:D

  7. #7
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,739
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg;2600514]This area should get more attention. I think Barack mentioned that he would chase AQ if they went over there.[/QUOTE]

    For the record, so we're clear, are you saying that you support a Obama-led U.S. Invasion of Pakistan for the purpose of killing/capturing AQ Forces?

    If you do, does Obama need to delcare War first?

    If not, what permissions do you beleive he is required to obtain (Congressional, U.N., etc.) before hand?

  8. #8
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,279
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2600535]For the record, so we're clear, are you saying that you support a Obama-led U.S. Invasion of Pakistan for the purpose of killing/capturing AQ Forces?

    If you do, does Obama need to delcare War first?

    If not, what permissions do you beleive he is required to obtain (Congressional, U.N., etc.) before hand?[/QUOTE]

    FYI: Obama has not suggested invading Pakistan. What he has suggested is not asking permission to strike (via missile or bomb) if we have actionable intelligence on the whereabouts of terrorist leaders.

    This, incidentally, is what the U.S. is now doing. We killed a major AQ leader this way over the winter.

    There is a difference between bombing and invading. I do not think, for instance, that anyone could reasonably describe the strike that killed the AQ leader as an "invasion." Not did we "invade" Afghanistan when we fired cruise missiles at Bin Laden in 1998.

    It is a less than ideal solution, but Pakistan is effectively harboring the people who attacked us on 9/11 and showing no inclination to capture or kill them.

  9. #9
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,424
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2600535]For the record, so we're clear, are you saying that you support a Obama-led U.S. Invasion of Pakistan for the purpose of killing/capturing AQ Forces?

    If you do, does Obama need to delcare War first?

    If not, what permissions do you beleive he is required to obtain (Congressional, U.N., etc.) before hand?[/QUOTE]

    you didn't pose the question to me, but i'll throw in my 2 cents.
    Al Qaeda, unlike Iraq, attacked us on our soil and the Taliban supported their efforts. I would be more inclined to use military force in Pakistan than Iraq or Iran.
    Pakistan has no legitimate government right now so its hard to declare war on them as a nation.
    Congress should end the Iraq debacle, forget about Iran who isn't touching anybody,and immmediately pass authorization to go after Al Qaeda militants in Western Pakistan

  10. #10
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,739
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2600712]FYI: Obama has not suggested invading Pakistan. What he has suggested is not asking permission to strike (via missile or bomb) if we have actionable intelligence on the whereabouts of terrorist leaders.

    There is a difference between bombing and invading. [/QUOTE]

    I believe you are playing a game of political semantics.

    If we perform a millitary strike inside another sovreign nation, be it via air strikes or ground assault, the ideal is the same.

    [QUOTE=Invasion]1: an act of invading, incursion of an army[/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE=Incursion]1 : a hostile entrance into a territory : raid [/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2600712]
    It is a less than ideal solution, but Pakistan is effectively harboring the people who attacked us on 9/11 and showing no inclination to capture or kill them.[/QUOTE]

    I thought most of those who attacked and planned 9/11 were Saudi, or so many of our Liberal friends have said here.

  11. #11
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,279
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2600766]I believe you are playing a game of political semantics.

    If we perform a millitary strike inside another sovreign nation, be it via air strikes or ground assault, the ideal is the same.







    I thought most of those who attacked and planned 9/11 were Saudi, or so many of our Liberal friends have said here.[/QUOTE]


    It is not semantics. There is a clear difference between invading and bombing.

    As far as the Saudis go, there's one you may have heard of named Osama Bin Laden. He lives in Pakistan now.

  12. #12
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,739
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2600784]It is not semantics. There is a clear difference between invading and bombing.[/quote]

    Nope. Semantics, in this case VERY politically motivated variety.

    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2600784]As far as the Saudis go, there's one you may have heard of named Osama Bin Laden. He lives in Pakistan now.[/QUOTE]

    Really? You SURE about that Nuu? Sure enough to invade a sovreign nation and so-called ally?

    Gonna trust the same intelligence services who said Iraq had WMD's to tell you where Bin Laden is? But only under an Obama Administration, eh?

    Well, says alot these comments Nuu, says alot indeed.

  13. #13
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,279
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2600924]Nope. Semantics, in this case VERY politically motivated variety.



    Really? You SURE about that Nuu? Sure enough to invade a sovreign nation and so-called ally?

    Gonna trust the same intelligence services who said Iraq had WMD's to tell you where Bin Laden is? But only under an Obama Administration, eh?

    Well, says alot these comments Nuu, says alot indeed.[/QUOTE]

    Spare me the very weak false equivalence.

    Yes, I'm sure AQ lives on Pakistan's side of the border. You may have read recent newspaper accounts of Nato bases in Afghanistan being attacked by AQ guys on the Pakistan side of the border, which somehow that feels a bit more solid than, say, "Mohammed Atta had lunch in Prague with some friend of Saddam's 12 years ago" or whatever.

    What I am talking about --and what we are already doing-- is very limited, targeted strikes from unmanned drones based on actionable inteligence.

    Will the intelligence always be right? No, of course not.

    But Pakistan is harboring the people who attacked us on 9/11. It has had every opportunity to act, and it has not. So we must.

    This is retaliatory, not pre-emptive.

  14. #14
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,739
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2600935]Spare me the very weak false equivalence.

    Yes, I'm sure AQ lives on Pakistan's side of the border. You may have read recent newspaper accounts of Nato bases in Afghanistan being attacked by AQ guys on the Pakistan side of the border, which somehow that feels a bit more solid than, say, "Mohammed Atta had lunch in Prague with some friend of Saddam's 12 years ago" or whatever.

    What I am talking about --and what we are already doing-- is very limited, targeted strikes from unmanned drones based on actionable inteligence.

    Will the intelligence always be right? No, of course not.

    But Pakistan is harboring the people who attacked us on 9/11. It has had every opportunity to act, and it has not. So we must.

    This is retaliatory, not pre-emptive.[/QUOTE]

    If you say so.

    Last I checked the planes that hit us on 9/11 had no Pakistani Terrorists on it, and weren't Pakistani planes. The people who made the attack are dead, and most of those who planned it are also reported as dead (Bin Laden the exception of course, he's in hiding someplace or dead, our vaunted Intel service has no idea where).

    That sure makes this something OTHER than "retaliatory" IMO. It's attacking into a sovreign nation without their permission to suit our own desires. Which I am fine with in this case btw. I am not the hypocrite here.

    You view simply looks like standard issue rationalization, politics and hypocricy to me. What you so angrily decry under a Republican is now ok.....because a Dem is doing it, and he can do no wrong, and our intel services are suddenly perfect enough to invade someone.

    Is invading another nation who has not attacked us wrong, or isn't it? Pakistan hasn't attacked the U.S. have they? And while we may think today that AQ is there (and they well may be) those same intel services also thought AQ and AQ-Friendly elements were in Iraq then too. Put simply, you are far more willing to trust an attack into a sovriegn nation (this time an officially friendly one) without permission under Obama, cause he's your guy.

    As I said, standard issue party-loyalty-based Politics. But the hypociritcal rarely see their own hypcricy for what it is. Flip, flop, flip, flop, flip, flop......:rolleyes:

  15. #15
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,279
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2600959]If you say so.

    Last I checked the planes that hit us on 9/11 had no Pakistani Terrorists on it, and weren't Pakistani planes. The people who made the attack are dead, and most of those who planned it are also reported as dead (Bin Laden the exception of course, he's in hiding someplace or dead, our vaunted Intel service has no idea where).

    That sure makes this something OTHER than "retaliatory" IMO. It's attacking into a sovreign nation without their permission to suit our own desires. Which I am fine with in this case btw. I am not the hypocrite here.

    You view simply looks like standard issue rationalization, politics and hypocricy to me. What you so angrily decry under a Republican is now ok.....because a Dem is doing it, and he can do no wrong, and our intel services are suddenly perfect enough to invade someone.

    Is invading another nation who has not attacked us wrong, or isn't it? Pakistan hasn't attacked the U.S. have they? And while we may think today that AQ is there (and they well may be) those same intel services also thought AQ and AQ-Friendly elements were in Iraq then too. Put simply, you are far more willing to trust an attack into a sovriegn nation (this time an officially friendly one) without permission under Obama, cause he's your guy.

    As I said, standard issue party-loyalty-based Politics. But the hypociritcal rarely see their own hypcricy for what it is. Flip, flop, flip, flop, flip, flop......:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]


    How many Afghans were on that plane? (Hint: Zero.)

    Were you in favor of our invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11?

    I was, because that's where Al Qaeda, the organization that killed 3,000 of our citizens, was being harbored.

    That same group has migrated across the border into Pakistan. If you believed we had cause to try and capture and kill it in 2002, any desire other than wanting to go after AQ now would be the real flip flop.

    As far as your "party loyalty" argument, as I posted earlier, I am describing what is our current --ie. Bush Administration-- policy. So there's something of a bipartisan consensus at work here.

    I have to say, the arguments you're making here are pretty intellectually lazy compared to your usual standard.
    Last edited by nuu faaola; 06-25-2008 at 01:40 PM.

  16. #16
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5,481
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg;2600514]I think Barack mentioned that he would chase AQ if they went over there.[/QUOTE]

    :rolleyes:

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    From Parts Unknown
    Posts
    10,258
    Post Thanks / Like
    Why are we even referring to the NY Times?? Its lost all credibility a long time ago...

  18. #18
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,739
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2600963]the arguments you're making here are pretty intellectually lazy compared to your usual standard.[/QUOTE]

    Wait.....I have a standard?

    Forgive me if the argument is "intellectually lazy", as it most certainly isn't MY argument. It is an argument I have read on this very site, as rationale for why Iraq is wrong, from a variety of liberal posters.

    Specificly, if Iraq was so clearly wrong because: Iraq (the Nation) did not attack us, and the Terrorists of 9/11 were not Iraqi, and we had only "Intelligence" to say that AQ was active in Iraq in some form, then why would doing the same thing to Pakistan (and we can dance on Semantics, but shooting missiles in quite the same ideal, I still content, as sending a few troops in) somehow be right?

    Personally, I favored (and continue to favor) Afganistan, yes, and I am fine with some efforts into Pakistan as well. As I said, I am not hypocritical on the topic of invavding nations who have not attacked us but harbour those who did.

    I WAS against Iraq beforehand, but more for difficulty, division of effort and twin-front warfare issues than some moral imperative (and in hindsight, I have grown less comfortable with pre-emption, and was proven right on all of my concerns).

    So again, forgive me Nuu, but the argument you're taking issue with is one your own side has used. I'm just having some grins tossing it back at you (as I did in the "Racism of Karl Rove" thread yesterday.

  19. #19
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,279
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2601110]Wait.....I have a standard?

    Forgive me if the argument is "intellectually lazy", as it most certainly isn't MY argument. It is an argument I have read on this very site, as rationale for why Iraq is wrong, from a variety of liberal posters.

    Specificly, if Iraq was so clearly wrong because: Iraq (the Nation) did not attack us, and the Terrorists of 9/11 were not Iraqi, and we had only "Intelligence" to say that AQ was active in Iraq in some form, then why would doing the same thing to Pakistan (and we can dance on Semantics, but shooting missiles in quite the same ideal, I still content, as sending a few troops in) somehow be right?

    Personally, I favored (and continue to favor) Afganistan, yes, and I am fine with some efforts into Pakistan as well. As I said, I am not hypocritical on the topic of invavding nations who have not attacked us but harbour those who did.

    I WAS against Iraq beforehand, but more for difficulty, division of effort and twin-front warfare issues than some moral imperative (and in hindsight, I have grown less comfortable with pre-emption, and was proven right on all of my concerns).

    So again, forgive me Nuu, but the argument you're taking issue with is one your own side has used. I'm just having some grins tossing it back at you (as I did in the "Racism of Karl Rove" thread yesterday.[/QUOTE]


    Grin away.

    It's not my argument and I certainly don't agree with every argument made by people who probably vote the same way I do. I have always favored the Afghanistan invasion, and one of my chief beefs against Iraq was that I felt it would be a distraction from that effort and --considering Iraq was clearly not harboring or aiding the 9/11 guys-- wasn't justified by events. (I won't get into the WMD stuff here.)

    In this case, I think we have basically the same view on Pakistan. I don't favor a full on invasion. I favor limited incursions --mostly by unmanned drones-- into the border regions to get the guys who attacked us. It sounds like you do, too.

    So we have a basic agreement, on this issue, between George Bush, Barack Obama, Warfish and Nuu. How often does that happen?

  20. #20
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    6,890
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2600535]For the record, so we're clear, are you saying that you support a Obama-led U.S. Invasion of Pakistan for the purpose of killing/capturing AQ Forces?

    If you do, does Obama need to delcare War first?

    If not, what permissions do you beleive he is required to obtain (Congressional, U.N., etc.) before hand?[/QUOTE]

    Fish, in a nutshell Barack is also a part of the WAR PARTY. Iraq may be the wrong war but clearly Afghan/Pak would be the 'late' war.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us