Boom Jam Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 I'm fairly certain that Obama is going to be faced with the prospects of invading Pakistan to secure the nuclear arsenal and prop up some sort of stable government. Hopefully the tribal areas get sanitized in the process and UBL's head gets fitted with a noose. I personally can't stand Obama, but I think he's the perfect President to pitch this to his party and to the rest of the world for that manner. What say the rest of you? If you are a supporter of his, will you support an invasion of Pakistan? If you are one of his detractors, will you support the invasion like I will, or will it be politics as usual? Should he pull this off, he'll get my vote in 2012 - It's just that simple. U.S. Has Plan to Secure Pakistan Nukes if Country Falls to Taliban Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 I'm fairly certain that Obama is going to be faced with the prospects of invading Pakistan to secure the nuclear arsenal and prop up some sort of stable government. Hopefully the tribal areas get sanitized in the process and UBL's head gets fitted with a noose. I personally can't stand Obama, but I think he's the perfect President to pitch this to his party and to the rest of the world for that manner. What say the rest of you? If you are a supporter of his, will you support an invasion of Pakistan? If you are one of his detractors, will you support the invasion like I will, or will it be politics as usual? Should he pull this off, he'll get my vote in 2012 - It's just that simple. U.S. Has Plan to Secure Pakistan Nukes if Country Falls to Taliban ......waz up bro? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fischer Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 "There is speculation in the intelligence community that a secondary reason for Army Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal being named the next commander in Afghanistan is that he headed JSOC in 2006-08 and is read-in on its contingency missions in Pakistan." That would make sense. Didn't read/hear about anyone upset they removed the last commander. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 That would make sense. Didn't read/hear about anyone upset they removed the last commander. That's 'cause they know the new guy gives out more medals. (Ok, that's a cheap shot. I don't actually have an opinion on him, I just remember that it was he who recommended Tillman for the Silver Star, knowing that it was probably friendly fire.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 So you will vote in 2012 for the guy if he attacks Pakistan. Even if it bring a jihad to the US and they start dropping airplanes on sky scrapers. No offense, but voting for someone over a single issue is pretty damn stupid. No offense my friend. Besides that this is sounding like Bushs need to go to Iraq. Oh my, Saddam is close to having nukes, sanctions aren't working, etc... Let's send our Secstate to get this through the UN, and then we'll attack. What are we now cleaning up the whole world?? How's about Pakistan destroy the nukes. How's about India attacking and taking the damn nukes since they're the ones who forced Pakistan to build them in the first place? Are you basing the need to go on our ever honest media and the messiah saying so? WTF have you learned? I am really disappointed in you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Darin will wait till after the invasion to say he was against it from the get go. Or something like that. No history there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boom Jam Posted May 20, 2009 Author Share Posted May 20, 2009 So you will vote in 2012 for the guy if he attacks Pakistan. Even if it bring a jihad to the US and they start dropping airplanes on sky scrapers. No offense, but voting for someone over a single issue is pretty damn stupid. No offense my friend. Besides that this is sounding like Bushs need to go to Iraq. Oh my, Saddam is close to having nukes, sanctions aren't working, etc... Let's send our Secstate to get this through the UN, and then we'll attack. What are we now cleaning up the whole world?? How's about Pakistan destroy the nukes. How's about India attacking and taking the damn nukes since they're the ones who forced Pakistan to build them in the first place? Are you basing the need to go on our ever honest media and the messiah saying so? WTF have you learned? I am really disappointed in you. To tell you the God's honest truth this is the only way I'll vote for Obama next time around, and yes it comes down to this one single issue. What it will signify is that this Administration has learned from the failures of the Clinton and Carter Administrations. Clinton should have taken out Saddam in 1994, and again in 1998 - he didn't and it was up to Bush to pull the trigger later on down the road at a greater cost in American and Iraqi lives. It's pretty fu@king sad that Clinton chose inaction over action considering his popularity at home and abroad. Ironically his wife is now Obama's Albright. Go figure. We all agree that Jimmy Carter has always been a tool, but in his defense Brzezinski didn't do him any favors. Considering Obama's ties to Brzezinski, I would view an invasion of Pakistan as a reversal of policy, and in effect an admission that Brzezinski was wrong about the Shah, and wrong about provoking the Soviets to invade Afghanistan. Whereas the Soviets were our biggest adversaries before Carter, look at who we're up against now. Brzezinski clearly had it wrong and that's just my humble opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boom Jam Posted May 20, 2009 Author Share Posted May 20, 2009 Darin will wait till after the invasion to say he was against it from the get go. Or something like that. No history there. We're all lemmings... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fischer Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 To tell you the God's honest truth this is the only way I'll vote for Obama next time around, and yes it comes down to this one single issue. What it will signify is that this Administration has learned from the failures of the Clinton and Carter Administrations. Clinton should have taken out Saddam in 1994, and again in 1998 - he didn't and it was up to Bush to pull the trigger later on down the road at a greater cost in American and Iraqi lives. It's pretty fu@king sad that Clinton chose inaction over action considering his popularity at home and abroad. Ironically his wife is now Obama's Albright. Go figure. We all agree that Jimmy Carter has always been a tool, but in his defense Brzezinski didn't do him any favors. Considering Obama's ties to Brzezinski, I would view an invasion of Pakistan as a reversal of policy, and in effect an admission that Brzezinski was wrong about the Shah, and wrong about provoking the Soviets to invade Afghanistan. Whereas the Soviets were our biggest adversaries before Carter, look at who we're up against now. Brzezinski clearly had it wrong and that's just my humble opinion. I'm (almost) with you on the Pakistani issue, military force may be necessary to secure the nukes and possibly stabilize the entire nation (how to get out is another issue), but . . . Why didn't GHWB take out Saddam - while we where in his front yard? What would have been Clinton's justification for attacking Iraq and overthrowing Saddam? It's easy to say that we'd be "better off" if we did, but there are just as many scenarios that could suggest that it'd be an even bigger mess now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 The U.S. is not going to invade Pakistan in an Iraq-type occupation for the simple reason that we don't have the resources to do it. A more likely scenario is that the Pakistan military stage a coup with a wink from the U.S. if the Taliban appear to be in a position to overthrow the civilian leadership, and if needed a small force of U.S. troops would be brought in at the Pakistani's request to help secure the nukes, or the U.S. would even take the nuclear material out of the country. I wouldn't be surprised if this is an existing planned contingency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Lieutenant Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 Clinton should have taken out Saddam in 1994, and again in 1998 - he didn't and it was up to Bush to pull the trigger later on down the road at a greater cost in American and Iraqi lives. Absolutely! Imagine how !@#$ed we'd be today if we didn't take out Saddam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 The U.S. is not going to invade Pakistan in an Iraq-type occupation for the simple reason that we don't have the resources to do it. A more likely scenario is that the Pakistan military stage a coup with a wink from the U.S. if the Taliban appear to be in a position to overthrow the civilian leadership, and if needed a small force of U.S. troops would be brought in at the Pakistani's request to help secure the nukes, or the U.S. would even take the nuclear material out of the country. I wouldn't be surprised if this is an existing planned contingency. Pakistan is not some banana republic, a baby uncomfortable in its big-boy pants. It is not a farce of a country either, like Iraq under Hussein. Some civil institutions run very deep and strong, the military in particular. They do not look for winks from us, they don't need our help securing the nukes (which is not quite the same thing as saying they are secured), and they certainly wouldn't let the US spirit them away. (As an aside, it's not the Pakistani military that has been getting its butt kicked in the tribal areas, but rather (at least until recently) the Frontier Corps. This is a paramilitary militia, very loosely equivalent to a border patrol/standing national guard. Most of the officers are regular military detailee's, but the soldiers are local recruits. They have neither education, training, nor adequate equipment. Sending in the regular army would be politically controversial.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boom Jam Posted May 21, 2009 Author Share Posted May 21, 2009 Karl Rove commentary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts