US strikes within Pakistan

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Gringinho, Sep 5, 2008.

  1. First there is the conflict in Georgia with US and Israeli equipped and trained military facing Russia.

    Now the US first does ground strikes, then rapidly two air-strikes on Pakistani villages - all attacks with predominantly civilian casualties.

    Are they completely mad?
    There is an imminent Pakistani election, the US election is very soon and Pakistan already has a very strained relation with the US, not to forget that there are very, very, very many militant religious extremists in Pakistan.

    What are they amassing here? It certainly seems like the US military is revving up tensions in the world for the US election...

    The Kashmir region is already the world's most explosive potential conflict area, and there have been bombings in Afghanistan blamed on ISS in Pakistan, bombings in India from extremists... The US is really playing with fire here...
    Well, the US also has it's fair share of religious extremist fundamentalists with the Christian conservatives and evangelicals.
  2. kut2k2


    Weren't the rightwingers here in ET and elsewhere accusing Obama of wanting to attack Pakistan? :p
  3. The rightwingers were not accusing obama of saying he would bomb pakistan.

    Obama said it himself dummy.

  4. kut2k2


    Wrong as usual, dummy.

    Obama said if elected he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government.

    "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.

    Republicans criticized this as Obama being irresponsible. Now Bush has done it and not a peep out of Republican zombies about irresponsible behavior.

    Always trying to have it both ways.

    Always a pathetic double standard with you sociopaths.

  5. Yes, with or without the approval of the Pakistani gov't.

    We are doing it with the Pakistani gov't.


  6. kut2k2



    "The U.S. and Pakistan, allies in the war on terror, have had tensions over cross-border attacks, including suspected American missile strikes in Pakistani territory. In one high-profile incident earlier this year, Pakistan said 11 of its soldiers died when U.S. aircraft bombed their border post."

    It appears this Pakistani "approval" is only coming after the fact. In any case, Obama proposed doing nothing different than is now being done by Bush, for which Obama got roundly criticized by Republicans. Hypocrites.
  7. We didn't want to undermine Musharaf. He's gone now. If we are going to have troops under fire in Afghanistan, we certainly cannot allow the enemy to have a sanctuary in Pakistan. If the Pakis won't deal with it, we will. Either that or get our troops out of Afghanistan.

    Obama's statement was objectionable not for what he said, but for the fact that he said it. If OBL or another high value target was located, I am quite sure we would go after them, whatever the Pakistanis said. You just don't want to rub an ally or even semi-ally like Pakistan's nose in it publicly. It showed Obama's inexperience and willingness to sacrifice the mission for political gain.
  8. So it would have been better if Obama had lied to the American people instead about where he stood on the issue?
  9. No, it would have been better if he had used some discretion. I realize that is a lot to ask for someone as inexperienced as he is, but like Joe Biden said, the Oval Office is not the place for on the job training.

    Anyway, I suspect obama was lying about what he would do. He was grandstanding, trying to make himself sound tough. He would likely be paralyzed by the thought of killing some muslims, just like Clinton was when they passed up a chance to take osama out.
    #10     Sep 6, 2008