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

[Jvstice]

No matter how this election goes, the neocons will have to deal with a president who is on record saying that waterboarding is torture. The number of fronts is up for grabs if the candidates stick to what they say now.

 

McCain: Afghanistan, Iraq, possibly Iran

 

Hillary: Afghanistan, Iraq, and possibly Iran and maybe eventually get out of Iraq, though she really hasn't committed wholeheareted to that as a goal.

 

Obama: Afghanistan and MAYBE regions within Pakistan, though there's been no mention of declaring or fighting an actual war against Pakistan, and he has mentioned specific tactics he wouldn't sanction (nukes) for getting rid of the terrorists.

 

Tommycat: No. He simply said that if the deaths could be reduced, he wouldn't mind if we were. That's not the same as a pledge to keep us there. I would say that it is a good indication of which way he leans though.

[Tommycat]

No matter how this election goes, the neocons will have to deal with a president who is on record saying that waterboarding is torture. The number of fronts is up for grabs if the candidates stick to what they say now.

 

McCain: Afghanistan, Iraq, possibly Iran

 

Hillary: Afghanistan, Iraq, and possibly Iran and maybe eventually get out of Iraq, though she really hasn't committed wholeheareted to that as a goal.

 

Obama: Afghanistan and MAYBE regions within Pakistan, though there's been no mention of declaring or fighting an actual war against Pakistan, and he has mentioned specific tactics he wouldn't sanction (nukes) for getting rid of the terrorists.

 

Tommycat: No. He simply said that if the deaths could be reduced, he wouldn't mind if we were. That's not the same as a pledge to keep us there. I would say that it is a good indication of which way he leans though.

Oh so you're taking Hil and Obama at their words, but Mc Cain, you inject your speculation and it's fine. I mean by Obama's standards we're not really fighting Iraq anymore, only regions of Iraq.

 

McCain has said if there were NO deaths he wouldn't mind us staying, but that isn't likely to happen. Besides, unless they change the Constitution, and up McCain's lifespan, 100 more years isn't something we're going to see.

[JCarter426]

This is where I point out that the President isn't supposed to have any say in who we go to war with.

[Ravnas]

Oh we know, there're simply building new ideas on this new method of governing a constitutional republican government

[mimartin]

McCain has said if there were NO deaths he wouldn't mind us staying, but that isn't likely to happen. Besides, unless they change the Constitution, and up McCain's lifespan, 100 more years isn't something we're going to see.

Forgive me, but are you saying that a President’s influence over this nation ends when his term is up? Treaties negotiated, allies gained or lost, trade pacts, Supreme Court Justices, bills signed into law/bills vetoed and promises made do not end when the President that made them term is up. Most Presidents have left their mark on this country, for better or worst. No sir, the President’s influence does not end when his/her term is over; it is felt long after the President has left office. (Sorry, I have been watching John Adams and I am feeling a little patriotic and full of idealism.)

[Ravnas]

And if I know anything, Bush's influence will leave scars..err..marks on this country. But back on topic, whoever wins the upcoming election should be more worried about how they're going to pay for further occupation of any area of the Middle-East then the actual occupation

[SilentScope001]

Obama never said that he'd invade Pakistan from anything I've seen so far.

 

Hm. Technically, Obama is not calling for an invasion of Pakistan, per se, BUT he is calling for sending troops and bombs into Pakistan if he feels Al-Qadiah is there, regardless of wheter Pakistan wants to or not. That's the thing.

 

It isn't technically an invasion, but people are going to not look at techancialities. They are going to look at one thing: Does Pakistan want US troops in the Northwestern Frontier? If no, then it is surely a violation of national soverignty. The Media does not really care of techncailities: it has claimed that Cambodia was invaded by US troops when the Cambodian government asked for those troops...and it has claimed that Afghanistan was invaded by the USSR, when the pro-USSR government asked for those troops. How do you think the Media will feel if the US deploy troops and bombs into Pakistan publically and Pakistan does not want those troops and bombs, unlike the Camobidan and Afghanistani governments?

 

Don't forget Osama bin Laden and his cronies. If the US send troops into Pakistan, don't you think they would call it an invasion as well? It could be just the thing to help rally up the insurgent base, if you will.

 

If Pakistan doesn't want our troops to go there or if our bombs to be dropped on their territory, then I think we should actually respect their wishes instead of going against them. [This could mean that if Obama gets Pakistan's premission, then we can send in troops, but it is rather unlikely Obama will get Pakistan's premission, because Pakistan want to keep control of its own territory and security.]

 

Yes, the current Bush regime is doing bombing secretly, but that's the thing: It is secret. It is secret because if it was public, like what Obama is proposing, then Pakistan will get even more angry. And it is also low-key, not at all what Obama is implying.

 

EDIT: Anyway, I want to try and drum up opposition to Obama's plan without calling it an invasion (which it isn't), but rather, a violation of national soverignty. It's pretty hard to do so though, so I made several mistakes when stating 'invasion' when I really didn't mean to, but I hope you understand what I am trying to state: What Obama proposed is bad, and it is even more bad because he is willing to do so pubically instead of doing it in private and secretly as to not offend anyone.

 

This sort of thing happened before: Ecaudor/Veneuzla vs. Colombia for one. And, in the 1990's, Rwanda got in trouble with Congo when Rwanda sent its troops to occupy Congo and hunt down Hutu rebels...which led to Rwanda and Congo fighting each other in the Second Congonese Civil War. Tensions between the two countries still exist.

[Tommycat]

Forgive me, but are you saying that a President’s influence over this nation ends when his term is up? Treaties negotiated, allies gained or lost, trade pacts, Supreme Court Justices, bills signed into law/bills vetoed and promises made do not end when the President that made them term is up. Most Presidents have left their mark on this country, for better or worst. No sir, the President’s influence does not end when his/her term is over; it is felt long after the President has left office. (Sorry, I have been watching John Adams and I am feeling a little patriotic and full of idealism.)

Not at all, However I will say that it is not guaranteed to live on. Heck McCain could only guarantee that the troops would be in for 8 years and the next president could easily say we're yanking them out anyway.

 

While people may not agree with WHY we went to war, there is one problem with yanking out our troops right now. Geneva Conventions state that the occupying force must remain until such time as the infrastructure and government are fully functional. And Don't bother with the "Well the US ignored Geneva Conventions before" junk, because if you really believe that absolves the US from GC responsibilities in Iraq, you need to wake the heck up.

[TK-8252]

True, Mimartin, but people have begun to associate the Democrats as being the Dove Party.

 

No one really thought of Democrats as the anti-war party until the Iraq War went south and they started criticizing. Many Democrats were for the Iraq War - John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, etc., before they were against it. The Democratic Party is not an anti-war party... it's an anti-Republican-war party. Just as the Republican party is an anti-Democratic-war party.

 

The dirty little secret is that starting war is the most quick and efficient way to expand the power of the executive branch to borderline unconstitutional levels. Both parties are out to grab power, whether it be by winning elections, stealing elections, gerrymandering, warmongering, scaring the people, passing bad legislation (the Patriot Act comes to mind), or outright criminal activity (Watergate, warrantless wiretapping, etc.)

 

The Republican Party used to be thought of as anti-war. The Vietnam War ended under Nixon's Presidency. Republicans were highly critical of Bill Clinton for "nation-building" and other military engagements. I really doubt that the Democratic Party would be nearly unanimously against the Iraq War if a Democratic President would have started it, just as I really doubt that the Republican Party would be nearly unanimously for the Iraq War if a Democratic President would have started it.

[Ravnas]

Actually, I know tons of liberal-leaning folks who wouldn't have supported the war if a Democrat led it. Although you are right in most situations. The hypocrisy of the average person is astounding.

[Tommycat]

No one really thought of Democrats as the anti-war party until the Iraq War went south and they started criticizing. Many Democrats were for the Iraq War - John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, etc., before they were against it. The Democratic Party is not an anti-war party... it's an anti-Republican-war party. Just as the Republican party is an anti-Democratic-war party.

 

The dirty little secret is that starting war is the most quick and efficient way to expand the power of the executive branch to borderline unconstitutional levels. Both parties are out to grab power, whether it be by winning elections, stealing elections, gerrymandering, warmongering, scaring the people, passing bad legislation (the Patriot Act comes to mind), or outright criminal activity (Watergate, warrantless wiretapping, etc.)

 

The Republican Party used to be thought of as anti-war. The Vietnam War ended under Nixon's Presidency. Republicans were highly critical of Bill Clinton for "nation-building" and other military engagements. I really doubt that the Democratic Party would be nearly unanimously against the Iraq War if a Democratic President would have started it, just as I really doubt that the Republican Party would be nearly unanimously for the Iraq War if a Democratic President would have started it.

You just said what I've been trying to tell people for a long time. Had GW not been the president in 2001, we would still have ended up in Iraq in 02. The only difference would have been that we wouldn't have GW being made fun of, it would be Gore. I can hear the Republican's cries now, "WE DON'T NEED WAR, WE DON'T NEED GORE!" Kinda had a nice ring to it.

[JCarter426]

Actually, I know tons of liberal-leaning folks who wouldn't have supported the war if a Democrat led it. Although you are right in most situations. The hypocrisy of the average person is astounding.

 

For instance, the mainstream media, which was the number one supporter of the war at the start.

[Q]

No one really thought of Democrats as the anti-war party until the Iraq War went south and they started criticizing. Many Democrats were for the Iraq War - John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, etc., before they were against it. The Democratic Party is not an anti-war party... it's an anti-Republican-war party. Just as the Republican party is an anti-Democratic-war party.

 

The dirty little secret is that starting war is the most quick and efficient way to expand the power of the executive branch to borderline unconstitutional levels. Both parties are out to grab power, whether it be by winning elections, stealing elections, gerrymandering, warmongering, scaring the people, passing bad legislation (the Patriot Act comes to mind), or outright criminal activity (Watergate, warrantless wiretapping, etc.)

 

The Republican Party used to be thought of as anti-war. The Vietnam War ended under Nixon's Presidency. Republicans were highly critical of Bill Clinton for "nation-building" and other military engagements. I really doubt that the Democratic Party would be nearly unanimously against the Iraq War if a Democratic President would have started it, just as I really doubt that the Republican Party would be nearly unanimously for the Iraq War if a Democratic President would have started it.

Excellent post, TK. Welcome back!

 

The last war that Americans almost unanimously agreed to fight was ~63 years ago.

[Ravnas]

For instance, the mainstream media, which was the number one supporter of the war at the start.

 

It really is a shame, there's way too much hypocrisy and jumping on the bandwagon. That's why I don't watch Fox,CNN,MSNBC or any of that drivel. I stick with PBS,Stephen Colbert, and Jon Stewart for my news

[JCarter426]

The last war that Americans almost unanimously agreed to fight was ~63 years ago.

 

That was the last one that was actually declared by Congress, as well. Funny, isn't it?

 

I stick with PBS,Stephen Colbert, and Jon Stewart for my news

 

Same here.

[EnderWiggin]

...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...

 

Can we get a citation on this please?

 

You say it was repeatedly stated and that he's been condemned, but as of Friday I didn't hear anything on FOXNews about it. Being a democrat, and seeing as FOX is a largely conservative news channel, I think I would have heard some criticism if this were the case.

 

I agree with Jae, where did you hear this?

 

_EW_

[SilentScope001]

Can we get a citation on this please?

 

Random citations from Google, but:

Pakistan raps ‘irresponsible’ Obama remarks

 

Obama willing to invade Pakistan in al-Qaeda hunt (the title said invade, but I don't see it as an invasion)

 

Obama's Warning to Pakistan Drives Democratic Debate

 

Tough talk on Pakistan from Obama

 

FOX NEWS: Pakistan Criticizes Obama on Comments

 

ABC News: Sparks Fly Over Obama's Pakistan Speech

 

Being a democrat, and seeing as FOX is a largely conservative news channel, I think I would have heard some criticism if this were the case.

 

This was back in August 2007 when he made those comments, and that was where he was criticized by Democratic rivals such as Clinton. However, the Obama Doctrine article correctly linked by Jvstice (thanks) indicated that he has not retracted that statement, and still stands by it. Being rather shocked about the implications, and the fact that the media forgot about it after making a fuss back in 2007, I made this topic.

 

But it was a pretty big news event back in August 2007. And you still do hear some minor criticism, and then some response back from Obama. This quote came from Feb. 2008:

 

"The best idea is not to broadcast what you're going to do, that's naive," said McCain, who also questioned the very notion of "bombing Pakistan without their permission." ...

 

In a conference call with reporters to respond, Obama foreign policy advisor Susan Rice said that McCain was "misrepresenting and distorting Barack Obama's positions" and argued that the Democrat "never suggested bombing an ally."

 

"McCain promises more war in Iraq," she said. "Obama will end the war in Iraq and focus on terrorists in Afghanistan."

 

McCain, Obama Battle Over Pakistan (pro-Obama blog post)

***

I kinda knew that I lost, but I might as well get myself on stable footing to state that this may happen (and if it is may, I think it will).

[mimartin]

Had GW not been the president in 2001, we would still have ended up in Iraq in 02.

Why? While I agree we would have been in Afghanistan no matter the President, I find it hard to believe we would be in Iraq, unless Cheney and Rumsfeld found a way to get themselves in that administration. Let’s not forget that although he towed the administration line, not everyone in the administration was convinced that invasion was the proper course of action. See Colin Powell for an example. The more prudent of Presidents may have seen Saddam Hussein as a threat, but figured our “War on Terror” took precedent before opening up a second front and diluting the resources needed in Afghanistan.

 

Yes, the current Bush regime is doing bombing secretly, but that's the thing: It is secret. It is secret because if it was public, like what Obama is proposing, then Pakistan will get even more angry. And it is also low-key, not at all what Obama is implying.

Maybe Obama believes like many Americans that openness of the government is a good thing. I don’t get that Obama is implying he would carpet bomb the entire country. What I get from his rhetoric is surgical strikes or the same thing we are doing now. It just sounds like he is not going to cry executive privilege every time something comes up.

 

Just in case some do not know, I made the mistake of voting for President Bush in his first Presidential election. While I do not consider myself a liberal on anything, but social issues, my misjudgment has cured me from voting Republican for the rest of my life time.

[SilentScope001]

Maybe Obama believes like many Americans that openness of the government is a good thing.

 

Not when said openness will likely enough make our allies upset and fuel American resistance. A major doctrine, plausible deniablity, is necessary, otherwise America may receive flak that it does not want. And Obama is tearing that up.

 

I don’t get that Obama is implying he would carpet bomb the entire country. What I get from his rhetoric is surgical strikes or the same thing we are doing now. It just sounds like he is not going to cry executive privilege every time something comes up.

 

He isn't implying carpet bombing, but the fact that he is implying bombing at all is what causes some concerns. Any bombing campagin can cause some damage to civilians, and it will be abused as a properganda point against the US.

 

Just in case some do not know, I made the mistake of voting for President Bush in his first Presidential election. While I do not consider myself a liberal on anything, but social issues, my misjudgment has cured me from voting Republican for the rest of my life time.

 

Never say never. You may regret it.

 

EDIT: Sorry for responding to your post every single second (which sadly is taking away time from schoolwork). The goal is now no longer to persuade, just to figure out what people believe...Eh.

[Corinthian]

I think Obama must be a masochist or something. He relishes shooting his own party down. Maybe he's a Republican in disguise...

[Totenkopf]

Frankly, it's another example of poorly chosen words on BO's part. Even if he would clandestinely, and possibly w/some degree of deniable culpability, go after AQ targets in Pakistan, it's imprudent to state it so openly (and pretty freaking stupid to boot). If it turned out that AQ was in Iran, would he openly be calling for strikes on that islamic republic as well? What about Turkey? Russia? The PRC? Britain?

[Tommycat]

Why? While I agree we would have been in Afghanistan no matter the President, I find it hard to believe we would be in Iraq, unless Cheney and Rumsfeld found a way to get themselves in that administration. Let’s not forget that although he towed the administration line, not everyone in the administration was convinced that invasion was the proper course of action. See Colin Powell for an example. The more prudent of Presidents may have seen Saddam Hussein as a threat, but figured our “War on Terror” took precedent before opening up a second front and diluting the resources needed in Afghanistan.

You're kidding, right? Clinton was even planning an invasion of Iraq. In fact he turned that plan over to Bush. You think that Gore would have completely turned from the plan his predicessor gave him? Bearing in mind that Clinton got us into several wars and even had us join the side of genocide, somehow because the rhetoric has shifted to republicans being hawks we're suddenly the war party. You must not study history much. Usually it's the Dems that get us into wars. To believe that this is somehow Cheney's war is completely naive. It's not like none of the Dems have ties to big oil. Heck if you look deep enough YOU might have ties to big oil.

[mimartin]

You must not study history much. Usually it's the Dems that get us into wars.

You may want to read post #16 in this thread, before questioning my intelligence of American history.

I'll also restate what I wrote in the post you quoted.

The more prudent of Presidents may have seen Saddam Hussein as a threat, but figured our “War on Terror” took precedent before opening up a second front and diluting the resources needed in Afghanistan.

I'm saying things changed after 09/11/2001 and our policies should have changed too.

[Totenkopf]

While Johnson escalated US involvement in Vietnam, the US was already involved under both Eisenhower and Kennedy post-Dien Bien Phu.

[Tommycat]

You may want to read post #16 in this thread, before questioning my intelligence of American history.

I'll also restate what I wrote in the post you quoted. I'm saying things changed after 09/11/2001 and our policies should have changed too.

Again I don't think you understand, the only reason the dems are now coming out against the Iraq war(when many of them were for it, nearly unanimous) is because it's a wonderful tool to bash the Republicans for. Had it been Gore in office, he would have done pretty much the same thing. Hit Afghanistan, and because we already have the support materials in the area, may as well clean up a mess from before. He would have used it as an opportunity to bash the republicans by saying that it was his job to clean up the mess we left there. 9/11 may have changed some of our priorities, but with Iraq shooting at our aircraft, and continued sabre rattling, if you think Gore wouldn't have gone in, you are naive. Not to mention it puts added pressure on Iran to clean up.

 

But my appologies for the history comment.