Obama/Unilateralism/Pakistan
MrBrian
Posts: 2,672
So Obama again say's that If Pakistan does not fully comply With the United States Of America, they (America) should go into Pakistan and do whatever needs to be done. (Mind you that's not verbatim, but he believes in unilateral action against Pakistan)
That's the guy some of you are looking to bring change? peace?
---
Also today Bush apporves commando raids inside Pakistan.
That's the guy some of you are looking to bring change? peace?
---
Also today Bush apporves commando raids inside Pakistan.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
You know, getting Usama will not solve any problems. Killing terrorists will not stop more terrorists from growing. Obama fails to address these things and his supporters don't care, or just don't know better.
It's easy, stop the reasons that are causing this hate towards the US, and you solve your problem for the most part. I mean it will still take years and years of good deeds by the US, but the end result should be, peace, if not at the very least, stability.
This chest pounding Obama is doing is insulting and dangerous. His supporters should be outraged that this man who talks about peace and change, is doing nothing to try and really solve the problems. Not only that, he's ready to make them worse,or to take a line from from his own campaign...'Hussein, more of the same'.
RAWALPINDI: The Pakistan Army has been ordered to retaliate against any action by foreign troops inside the country, Geo News quoted ISPR spokesman Maj Gen Athar Abbas as saying on Thursday night.
Shakil Shaikh adds from Islamabad: Pakistan's military commanders resolved to defend the country's borders without allowing any external forces to conduct operations inside Pakistan.
Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has termed General Kayani's response to the Americans as a true reflection of the government's policy. The military commanders are understood to have discussed the implications of the American attacks inside Pakistan and took stock of the public feeling.
"In his statement, Genral Kayani has represented the feeling of the entire nation, as random attacks inside Pakistan have angered each and every Pakistani," said a senior official. As the corps commanders continue their discussion on Friday, the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has supported the Bush administration's policy of conducting attacks inside Pakistan.
President Zardari is expected to talk to Mr. Brown on this issue during his first visit to Britain next week. Pakistan's Ambassador to the US, Hussain Haqqani, is also learnt to have already talked to senior security officials in Washington. The latest spate of attacks from drones in Fata has killed many innocent people recently, which has only added to the gravity and complexity of the situation.
----
http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=17190
I don't understand why people just can't have it both ways...why don't we just do both? Why can't we understand the need for the United States to adopt it's dangerous foreign policy undertakings throughout the world while still acknowledging that Osama Bin Laden along with many of the top operatives of Al Qaeda murdered thousands of American citizens and need to be apprehended? I believe in a liberal foreign policy, and believe our war in Iraq was decided by criminally negligent leaders, but I think when you fly a plane into a building I don't think the response to deal with bin Laden directly is to play nice.
If you see Usama walking around, sure get him. put him on trial and see what happens. fine.
But keep in mind, a large possibility exists that some high ranking officials may of allowed 9/11 to happen. Perhaps Israel knew in advance? How about all these issues? I do have a problem that so much focus is on Bin Ladin.
Take into account all the variables. That is something the american people do not want to do.
And almost never in Americas history has it ever played nice to begin with, so perhaps it's time?
Agreed ... I mean, one could argue that catching any specific murderer won't really change the overall murder rate in a given nation. Perhaps that's even true. But that's not the issue ... Justice is the issue. Osama and cronies must be captured and tried, assuming that they can be taken alive. Deciding not to do so is completely contrary to basic things like the rule of law, not to mention rudimentary morality ... If you have a conscience, you probably believe that Osama needs to be caught. Whether or not he is 100% guilty (and I personally feel that the 9-11 conspiracy theories lack evidentiary support, almost completely), he is a "prime suspect". Whether or not his capture will actually improve world safefy overall is a different issue.
Dude, convince me that the purported link between Israel and an alleged 9-11 cover-up is anything other than a new take on an old idea: Namely, the Jewish boogeyman ... In 1930, it was the Jews controlling all the banks ... Now, its the Jews masterminding terrorist strikes on their allies.
Oh for God's sake, just because I don't buy into the rampant and uncorroborated theories about all the shadiness on the part of the U.S. (and of course, no theory would be complete without Israel), does not mean I am not taking into account all the variables. I'm as big a conspiracy theorist as anyone, but such notions are ridiculous. You're free to think what you want, but don't even bother trying to tell me that I'm a sheep.
Sure, but the point is, people don't seem to care about anything else. Say they catch him. He get's a fair trial, he's found guilty, then what?
Then he is sentenced, and the justice system chugs along until the next guy comes along. Sure, this is not an adequate solution to the problem of terrorism. Foreign policy changes and other measures to curb radicalization might be the big money solutions. In the meantime, justice still needs to be served.
what exactly is ridiculous?..Also I'm not calling you a sheep, maybe you feel like one? I don't know, but i'm just trying to have an open debate on these issues.
Let's also not forget the major point of this thread, which is Obama and him not looking at the other issues and I feel that a leader should look at everything. Not just pound his chest and attack. As it will not solve any problems.
It's still only part justice, My point is that it's wrong to put all the focus on one man. You know picture this, take a glass bowl, drop it into a sink full of water and while it's in the water, try and towel dry it. It's not gonna get very dry right?
That seems to be the American logic of doing things.
"Take into account all the variables."
You were responding to me, but who were you writing to there?
I can agree with this, at least in part ... People in general (not just Americans) need a simple focus if they are to understand issues. Focusing on Osama is "easier" than focusing on the bigger picture, and I think some of this is just basic human nature. This is not a good state affairs, because while everyone thinks about catching Osama, the war in Iraq continues (a source of radicalization), Israel continues to grab land (another source of radicalization), Britain sits there with his collective head up its arse while isolated pockets of Muslims (British citizens!!) scheme their next attack, in a horrible case of "multiculturalism" gone wrong ... Lots of things contribute to terrorism, and people do squat about these things.
Who is focusing on one man here? I don't think I've heard either candidate say that catching bin Laden is the #1 goal in the war on terror.
Sure they would like to, but I think Obama realizes that there are more important issues with our relations to that part of the world.
Also, I don't think it is accurate to say he supports unilateral action against Pakistan. I believe he has stated that he would support targeted bombing of locations where intelligence showed key al-Qaeda targets were located. This would presumably need to be done quickly as they don't stick in one place for too long, and so it might require that we do so without prior approval from Pakistan.
It's all such a crock of shit...
duped again...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Well This was last years
---
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) — Pakistan on Friday criticized U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes inside this Islamic nation to root out terrorists.
Top Pakistan officials said Obama's comment was irresponsible and likely made for political reasons related to the race for the Democratic nomination for next year's U.S. presidential election.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-08-03-pakistan-obama_N.htm
I can't find the article I read the other day, but it said that Obama now is willing to use unilateral action against Pakistan if they do not fully comply with the US.
That was the statement I was refering to. If there was a second statement regarding attacks against the Pakistani government, I would think it would be everywhere in the news. I find it kind of hard to believe to be honest.
If it's true though, I certainly don't agree with that policy, and would stand corrected.
ok, i'm still looking for it, I swear I just read it two days ago! haha, figures I can't find it now. Anyway, I guess it doesn't matter much, I don't think the majority of Obama supporters would care anyway.