Jump to content

Home

Obama will invade the Northwestern Territory of Pakistan...If he is not stopped


SilentScope001
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am getting more and more upset about Obama, and as a Republican/Democrat, I am getting more paranoid that Obama will lead us into problems...

 

He has stated repeately that he will bomb the Northwestern Territory/Northwest Frontier (a 'province' in Pakistan), that he would send troops over there if needed, if Osama bin Laden or Al-Qadiah is there...even without the premission of the Pakistani government. He has not retracted this, even when other people condemned him. It is true that America is sending in military advisors...but those advisors came because Pakistan want them to come. It is true that America is secretly bombing the Northwestern Territory, but that's the thing, it's secret, America doesn't want to confirm it is happening because of the consquences.

 

What Obama is stating is akin to, say, Turkey stating that they will attack Kurdistan to hunt down the PKK terrorists...which Iraq wouldn't want because it is their territory, and their responsiblity. National soverignity and control become rather important. So is protecting against terrorism. But the international crisis that could result if Obama send troops into Pakistan or openly bomb the Northwestern Territory...will be terrible.

 

People will call it an 'invasion'. America will have to fight in yet another area, similar to Afghanistan, and will have to be seen as 'occupiers'. I'm going to call it another quamire...and a quamire which does not make sense.

 

Obama is calling for it, and he will likely do it. And...er...I can't, I cannot look at any other aspect of Obama other than this invasion, other than this thing that goes against everything else he says. We must be humble, but we must be willing to do whatever we want. We must call for a summit with all Muslims, but we must not listen to whatever they say. And why is Obama not getting punished for it?

 

(EDIT: Well, prehaps to showcase my anger...

 

In an article by Sol W. Sanders, "The Truth about a War America Aren't Winning", U.S. News and World Report, August 5,1963...about the Vietnam War:

 

One British diplomat told me:

 

"We British felt we had to hold the Northwest Frontier in India during the nineteenth century. For almost 100 years we had to live with a bad situation, losing the lives of our young men, spending large sums of money to buy tribesmen and to fight wars. South Vietnam may be your Northwest Frontier."

 

And Northwest Frontier may be our South Vietnam.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! THIS IS A TRIUMPH!

 

Betting opening now. Is Obama just a complete idiot, or is he deliberately throwing the race? This is the second time he's had one of these face-slapping idiocies against him, first with his priest buddy who he didn't drop, and now essentially promising a war! MCCAIN IS THE PEACEBRINGER! This is absolutely delightful!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MCCAIN IS THE PEACEBRINGER!
Only if you consider the possibility of having occupation forces staying in Iraq for 100 years being a peaceful solution is John McCain a peacemaker. If Osama bin Laden, the leader of Al-Qaeda (in case that fact has been forgotten with our made up war in Iraq), is hiding in Pakistan then I see no reason not to go into Pakistan to get him. After all didn’t our current President say on September 20, 2001 “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Even Hillary Clinton said something similar 7 days before President Bush when she said, "Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."

 

Frankly, I believe if you are going to declare a “War on Terrorism” you should go after the terrorist and not just people that share some of their religious beliefs.

 

And Northwest Frontier may be our South Vietnam.)

Funny, I thought Iraq was this generations Vietnam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only if you consider the possibility of having occupation forces staying in Iraq for 100 years being a peaceful solution is John McCain a peacemaker.

 

I'm not an American, but I do take an interest in world politics, so I have to ask: Where do people keep getting this '100 years' thing?

 

To me that just seems completely ludicrous, and fantastical.

 

I've been following the presidential race, and to be honest, If I were American, i'd vote for McCain. Clinton only seems to be interested in publicity, and all i've seen Obama do so far is Smile and Wave, Smile and Wave...

 

McCain's the only i've seen who is really doing anything - positive or negative.

 

Please correct this possibly not well informed Englishman if i've said anything wrong. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not an American, but I do take an interest in world politics, so I have to ask: Where do people keep getting this '100 years' thing?

McCain want to use the Korea model and said we could possibility have troops in Iraq for the next 100 years. You Tube showing the townhall meeting and McCain's comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea um... it's gonna be the policy of ANY American President to go after Osama bin Laden and the rest of al-Qaeda if we know where they are, no matter if that country wants us to or not. What Barack said was not anything new. It has been our policy since 9/11. It will be the policy under any future Presidency, whether it be Clinton, Obama, or McCain.

 

This thread is an obvious Obama-bash which tries to play on his relative lack of foreign policy experience (not that Clinton or McCain have any positive foreign policy experiences - their votes for the Iraq War come to mind) and doesn't really hold any merit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny, I thought Iraq was this generations Vietnam.

 

So do I. But I rather have only one Vietnam rather than two Vietnams in one generation, thank you very much.

 

Yea um... it's gonna be the policy of ANY American President to go after Osama bin Laden and the rest of al-Qaeda if we know where they are, no matter if that country wants us to or not.

 

Bush disagrees with you on this, strangely enough considering that he adopts this line for every other country. You will need the support of Pakistan. America provides lots of assistance to Pakistan in the War On Terrorism, but only if Pakistan asks for such assistance. Doing something the Pakistan government does not want (bomb its territory, or send in US troops)...and we just lost ourselves one ally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush disagrees with you on this, strangely enough considering that he adopts this line for every other country. You will need the support of Pakistan. America provides lots of assistance to Pakistan in the War On Terrorism, but only if Pakistan asks for such assistance. Doing something the Pakistan government does not want (bomb its territory, or send in US troops)...and we just lost ourselves one ally.

 

What? When has Bush ever said that we would not take strike al-Qaeda in Pakistan if their government does not approve? If we knew where Osama bin Laden was, and he was somewhere in Pakistan, but their government tells us not to kill him, do you really think ANY American President would not go ahead and take out the man behind 9/11? And yeah we might lose them as allies, but what good is Pakistan as an ally if they won't let us take out what we know are al-Qaeda hideouts? If we lose them as an ally, well, damn, but I'd much rather see al-Qaeda destroyed and bin Laden dead.

 

Read this article. Bush's homeland security advisor said basically the same thing Obama said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The hypothetical described seems very similar to the thread a while back about Ecuador and Columbia. I think that someone would have to be pretty stupid to think that just because we're the US we can do such things without repercussions. People would get angry, just as the South American situation has shown. Of course, I imagine it would probably be reasonably easy to get permission to pursue Osama (in a limited fashion) inside Pakistan, so I'm not sure how realistic an alternate occurrence is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John McCain wants to continue our current policies on the “War on Terrorism” by continuing the war in Iraq. Perhaps given 100 years they will find the WMDs we were all told Iraq had. He even has been threatening to escalate the war by going after Iran, seems his foreign policy is a little short in that he knows nothing about the difference between Shi’a and the Sunni or the history between them.

 

According to SilentScope001 information, Barack Obama wants to go after the people that attacked us on 9/11/2001.

 

Personally I would not call either peaceful, but Obama’s plan at least means we will be going after those that wronged the country I love.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the topic worked in gauging data/support. If the American people is in support of this "violation of Pakistani soverginity"/"defense of America against evil terrorists", eh. This is a democracy, after all. Just that you should know what you are getting.

 

Anyway, I just realized that prehaps the people on this forum may not have heard about Obama's "invasion" plan until now, so I dug up some links so that you can decide for yourself.

 

Obama's belief on Pakistan is not new. He gotten flak all over the media when he mentioned the idea in 2007. He still keeps that policy and will not retract it. It is mentioned as part of the Obama Doctrine article, and to me, a pretty major part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the American people is in support of this "violation of Pakistani soverginity"/"defense of America against evil terrorists
I don’t want to violate any countries sovereignty, but that sentiment meant nothing when we were invading Iraq or Afghanistan. Wonder if sovereignty would mean anything under McCain’s plan on what to do about Iran.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

World War I – Woodrow Wilson – Democratic

World War II – Franklin Delano Roosevelt – Democratic

Korean War – Harry S. Truman – Democratic

Vietnam War – Lyndon Johnson – Democratic

 

Going by history, it should be no surprise that Democrats are war hawks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't mean they're right in associating Democrats as peace-loving hippies, however voter apathy is never a good thing, it never is,and it never will be. If someone votes for the wrong person and they win,they will have a horrible presidency(if they're lucky :roleyess: ), and that person at least has four years(eight if they're unlucky :D ) to learn what a stupid decision they made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your wishes aren't everybody's wishes, although I can see how the average uninformed person would be turned off by Obama's statements. Not a snipe against you, just pointing out a fact. But I suppose an uninformed voter wouldn't know anything about where Bin Ladin's hiding so that would render a lot of opinions irrelavent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama met in California for the Jan. 31 debate, their back-and-forth resembled their many previous encounters, with the Democratic presidential hopefuls scrambling for the small policy yardage between them. And then Obama said something about the Iraq War that wasn't incremental at all. "I don't want to just end the war," he said, "but I want to end the mind-set that got us into war in the first place."

 

Until this point in the primaries, Clinton and Obama had sounded very similar on this issue. Despite their differences in the past (Obama opposed the war, while Clinton voted for it), both were calling for major troop withdrawals, with some residual force left behind to hedge against catastrophe. But Obama's concise declaration of intent at the debate upended this assumption. Clinton stumbled to find a counterargument, eventually saying her vote in October 2002 "was not authority for a pre-emptive war." Then she questioned Obama's ability to lead, saying that the Democratic nominee must have "the necessary credentials and gravitas for commander in chief."

 

If Clinton's response on Iraq sounds familiar, that's because it's structurally identical to the defensive crouch John Kerry assumed in 2004: Voting against the war wasn't a mistake; the mistakes were all George W. Bush's, and bringing the war to a responsible conclusion requires a wise man or woman with military credibility. In that debate, Obama offered an alternative path. Ending the war is only the first step. After we're out of Iraq, a corrosive mind-set will still be infecting the foreign-policy establishment and the body politic. That rot must be eliminated.

 

Silentscope: I got that from the link you posted on what he stands for. And if you read further into "the Obama Doctrine," he's in favor of getting us out of Iraq, seeing no need for a fight with Iran. Likewise we'd still be fighting Afghanistan no matter who gets in between him, Hillary, or McCain. Obama doesn't simply say we should invade Pakistan though. He simply repeats what George Bush told us would be the new U.S. policy. We're going to go after terrorists. If Pakistan won't do it themselves, we'll do it, and we won't use nukes to do it. All in all that sounds a very positive thing that common sense be the basis for where and if we fight, and not fraud and propaganda.

 

And I would like to see a general election between McCain and Obama. At least then we'd see two different views actually expressed and debated on their merits. Hillary's just a "me too" on the republican foriegn policy. Not saying that I'm unconditionally in favor of what he has to say, but based on what you posted I am intrigued. This from someone who considered themselves a Reagan conservative in the 80s, even though I was too young to vote until Bush the first ran.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama never said that he'd invade Pakistan from anything I've seen so far. He said we should go after the terrorists there if they were there and if Pakistan refused to do it themselves when confronted with the information that terrorists were within their borders. That's two really big ifs that we have no reason to assume are true.

 

The full text of what silent scope linked is here from that summary he posted.

 

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_obama_doctrine

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...