Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: Invading Pakistan

  1. #1
    Administrator Sandra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,683

    Default Invading Pakistan

    One of the biggest things most people tell me when I ask them why they plan to vote for Obama is that they don't want another Bush, yet they don't realize just how much like Bush Obama really is, although he is far more liberal.

    Lately one topic brought up concerns Obama saying that when he's President he's going to invade Pakistan.

    According to the Colorado Springs Gazette, Bush has already authorized such an invasion and our troops were fired on.

    Here are the first couple of paragraphs and a line from one of today's Gazette editorials:

    It is unclear whether Pakistani troops actually confronted and turned back U.S. troops on the verge of crossing the border from Afghanistan a few days ago in pursuit of Taliban forces that had conducted a raid in Afghanistan and slipped back into Pakistan. What does seem clear is that the Pakistani government has more-or-less formally warned the U.S. that it will fire upon U.S. (or NATO) troops if they do cross the border into Pakistan.

    This is a complication in that President Bush apparently approved orders back in July for U.S. special operations forces to carry out ground assaults inside Pakistan without the prior approval of the Pakistani government. Tension increased after U.S. commandos landed helicopter gunships in another village in Pakistan on Sept. 3 and attacked what was believed to be a militant compound.

    Is this any way to treat an ally?
    Someone commented bringing up the question as to why we are allies with a country that has been harboring terrorists. Good question, since those same terrorists taking refuge in Pakistan and Afganistan claim responsibility for 9/11.

    We should not be crossing the borders into a country we are allies with and start policing them like that. That is an act of aggression and war, I don't care what the reason is. If we're going to declare war, let's do it properly - starting with no longer having Pakistan as an ally. Then there's the congressional "thing"...we can't just send troops into some other country and start firing like that.

    At the same time, our allies should not be harboring terrorists. Does an ally hide an ally's enemies? No. That is an act of aggression (even if it's passive aggression, it's still aggression), in my opinion.

    Even Obama, in his speech, stated that he'd send troops into Pakistan without approval from their government first. That's an invasion, and that is an act of aggression and perhaps war.

    So to anyone who thinks they're voting Bush out of office if they Vote Obama in, look again. Obama is a Socialist version of Bush.

    And as John Lennon said, "The goal of socialisim is communism."

    If you vote for Obama, you'd better get used to our new American flag: Red, Red, and Red.


    That Gazette article can be found here:
    http://www.gazette.com/opinion/pakis...ghanistan.html

  2. #2

    Default Here is what O really said:

    "I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama said, "but let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

    If Obama says we will act, that does not necessarily equate an invasion, does it? I think in context, when O mentions a "leadership meeting," he is probably talking about something a more "surgical" and less "invasion," don't you think?

  3. #3
    Administrator Sandra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,683

    Default

    No, Artie.

    First, Pakistan is our ally. Allies have these agreements that they will not invade each other's territories without permission from their governments. It's a kind of treaty, and to break a treaty is a kind of treason.

    Second, if you read Obama's own official website, he states sending troops over there and into Afghanistan without permission from their governments. He calls this the war we need to win. The word war is a very strong word internationally, and should never be used in this context by anyone seeking leadership of this country unless they mean it.

    People are angry at Bush for declaring war in Iraq, but Obama's not even President - he's only in the running - and already he's threatening to go against peace agreements and take us to war.

    If he meant, "we'll just work together", he'd have said so. But that's not what he's saying, he's describing acts of war.

    Whether you want to call his ideas surgical as opposed to invasion is moot. Either way, to enter any part of their territory unwelcome is considered invasive - an act of invasion. It's a targeted invasion, either way, but still an invasion.

    It is disconcerting to see someone want to step into the Oval Office roaring and exerting his power - that's just what Hitler did, and look what happened. We don't need that attitude in our highest office.

    War should be a last resort only, and should not be considered until we're ready for it. We have depleated funds and battle weary soldiers. What war are we going to win like that? And who's going to back us? Granted other countries have seen more terrorist attacks than we have, but will they back us? We can't fight such a war alone, and to try would be stupid and arrogant.

    The US is known around the world for usurping our own US Constitution. To have yet another person go into office acting like that precious document is yesterday's butt wipe does not speak well for the US and, in my opinion, threatens the security of this nation's freedom. We must be protecting our US Constitution, not abusing it.
    Last edited by Sandra; 09-21-2008 at 09:35 AM.

  4. #4
    Administrator Sandra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,683

    Default

    http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/0...eed_to_win.php

    There is a remark in there that implies he is even willing to go against NATO, as well. That would be a grave mistake for the US at this point.

    What's the use of having treaties if we're not going to keep them?! Obama is just a power thirsty person, exploiting our problems to gain support so he can be advanced into power just like Hitler was.

  5. #5
    Forum Royalty large's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Pueblo, Colorado
    Posts
    14,078

    Default

    Artie, ANYTIME one country crosses another's borders, without diplomatic agreement to do so, it is considered a "Hostile Action" or an Act of War, no matter the attacking country's reason. Even a threatened Military action can (and often is) considered hostile, as are a "Show of Force" by the Military of one country to another. E.G. A joint NATO Military Exercise in Poland or Kzakistan. Russia would certainly (and rightfully) be pi$$ed!

    So to imply that he would take or assume a position like that, without pre arbitration, would appear to make the "New President" even more warlike and inclined to attack ANY country with "terrorists" hiding within, than the current liberal's view of G.W. Bush . .

    Remember, Bush had the vote of Congress, the people and the press when he invaded Iraq. Obama . . not so much . . anywhere!

    Let me make, perhaps a correction on Sandra's (or perhaps a good share of the public's) perception of Mr. Bush . . Bush did not enter office with any intent of becoming a "Warrior President" . . He only reacted to the situation cast upon him on 9/11/01, and according to the historical polls, he reacted as the people and Congress desired.

    Obama, John McCain and the Current Congress can have 20/20 hindsight and call it like it "Should've been" but history is history. You can argue with your wife about whether you should have taken the last exit or not . . the Exit's past . . it's time to finish making the correction and move on, sensibly.

    And . . Afghanistan (I'll say it again) is not the same as Iraq, and what worked in Iraq will not, in all probability, work in Afghanistan and Western Pakistan. We're dealing with a completely different mindset there . . The only thing Iraq and the "Stans' have in common is Islam . . and AK 47's

    And based upon the list of Obama's "Military Advisors' our current Spammer provided, none of them either understand the question or know much about COIN or the Hillbillies we will have to deal with (and win over) in
    Afghanistan. so . . if Obama listens to them, he'll end up in an even deeper "Quagmire" than Dubya ever got close to in Iraq.

    That simple . . and I make the above statement knowing that at one time or another, they all had their chance to deal with both Iraq and Afghanistan . . and they're all retired now, working as lobbyists or pundits for one MSM network or another . . and usually spouting the same doctrines that got them relieved of command . . The "Smart ones" are still serving!

    As for NATO . . I stand on the idea that we should leave NATO, let them protect themselves with their tax dollars, instead of our's . . We have little interest in NATO other than to protect the East side of the Atlantic from problems they, themselves create . .
    Last edited by large; 09-21-2008 at 09:29 AM.
    "A man with a firearm is a citizen... a man without one is a subject"

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Phoenix Az
    Posts
    1,421

    Default Silly

    Sandra is still perpetuating the myths ? You know better and still go on. Silly

  7. #7
    Forum Royalty large's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Pueblo, Colorado
    Posts
    14,078

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davide View Post
    Sandra is still perpetuating the myths ? You know better and still go on. Silly
    Spam . . . . .
    "A man with a firearm is a citizen... a man without one is a subject"

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Phoenix Az
    Posts
    1,421

    Default

    A careful review of Barack Obamas records and itinerary will show that he was not present when the "GD America "remarks were made or the "chickens coming home to roost comments" were made. He was there when other "controversial " remarks were made but not remarks at this level. Jeremiah Wright is not a racist , his church, the United Church of Christ , is a predominantly white church.

    Remember.

    1. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said America is damned cursed by God, though not permanently because we tolerate feminists and queer people.

    2. John Hagee says America is damned cursed by God, though not permanently because we tolerate Muslims.

    3. Jeremiah Wright says America is damned cursed by God, though not permanently, suffering from hate and division, from bitterness and envy because we succumb to hating one another.

    There is nothing wrong with Jeremiah Wright other than if you have not lived his experience you cannot understand him. He preaches in the "tradition of the prophets". Calling out your government for their Moral failures. This is the task of a prophet.

  9. #9
    Forum Royalty large's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Pueblo, Colorado
    Posts
    14,078

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davide View Post
    A careful review of Barack Obamas records and itinerary will show that he was not present when the "GD America "remarks were made or the "chickens coming home to roost comments" were made. He was there when other "controversial " remarks were made but not remarks at this level. Jeremiah Wright is not a racist , his church, the United Church of Christ , is a predominantly white church.

    Remember.

    1. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said America is damned cursed by God, though not permanently because we tolerate feminists and queer people.

    2. John Hagee says America is damned cursed by God, though not permanently because we tolerate Muslims.

    3. Jeremiah Wright says America is damned cursed by God, though not permanently, suffering from hate and division, from bitterness and envy because we succumb to hating one another.

    There is nothing wrong with Jeremiah Wright other than if you have not lived his experience you cannot understand him. He preaches in the "tradition of the prophets". Calling out your government for their Moral failures. This is the task of a prophet.
    Spam . . . . . .
    "A man with a firearm is a citizen... a man without one is a subject"

  10. #10
    Administrator Sandra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,683

    Default

    Here's what Jeremiah Wright says:

    "...in White America US of KKK..."

    "Who cares what a poor black man has to face every day in a country and a culture controlled by rich white people..."

    "Jesus was a poor black man who lived in a country and who lived in a culture that was controlled by rich white people..."

    "It just came to me within the past few weeks, y'all, why so many folks are hating on Barack Obama. He doesn't fit the model. He aint white, he aint rich, and he aint privileged." (Funny. He lives in a multi million dollar mansion, and he is half white, and as far as not being privileged, well, someone helped the Harvard grad get to where he is today, so if that's not privileged, then what is?)

Posting Permissions

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