A whole new war, a dazzling hate I never knew

POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Friday, January 30, 2009 20:59
VIEWED: 6353
PAGE 1 of 1

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, January 25, 2009 6:03 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/24/pakistan-barack-obama-air-
strike

Oh, Bomb a.
Kill any kids today Barack?

I said he had 18 months unless he did something utterly moronic like attack Pakistan. This would be where he just attacked Pakistan. Meet the new president, just like the old president.

This regime is just six days old...
(george harrison weird al tune comes to mind)

Oh, and isn't this the guy who said "dropping bombs isn't the best way to conduct a manhunt for suspected criminals?" Well, I guess it's not, but good enough for Obama.

Who wants a riot? I think that the honeymoon just came to a crashing close, time to bring it down.

Does anyone really think that the peace protesters of the left who marched by the millions to try decry the deaths of thousands by Bush Sr., who were silent over the 10 million or so Clinton casualties, but took up signs again to oppose W. are going to follow their own moral convictions and storm the mall?

Of course not. Watch them do what they always do, defend it, rationalize it, dismiss it. And then do nothing.

But Barack, meet me at camera three:

You just attacked a US ally that you are sworn to defend. Also your advisors said such attack is an attempt to destabilize the region and increase terrorism. Anyone have Obama saying this? He might have. And, yes, you just invalidated every treaty the US ever signed, since by treaty, we are sworn to protect Pakistan, the word of the US, revived for 6 days, is now utterly worthless, and all treaties void.

But more than that, you just killed 18 so called suspects. Even if they were suspects and you had any idea what you're bombing, even a cop who did that would be burned at the stake. And spare me the Bush this Bush that, everyone said Bush was a shmuck and should fry. Is this what you're aiming for?

So, you want to go to war with Pakistan. a nation half our size. China's not going to be too happy with that. Hell. No one is. So, people want to give Harry hell for using the term Paki. Last I checked, and correct me if I'm wrong, he wasn't bombing them.

Oh, and lastly, remember the part where you said you would encourage the Pakistani govt. to face down the rebels, and aid them in that fight, and only use unilateral force as a last resort? Well gee. That only took 6 days. I guess you're taking the Bush angle of "Last resort" means "as soon as they give me that button I'm hitting fire."

Well, liberals of the world, you know who said they wouldn't attack Pakistan, because we were allied by treaty to them, and would instead help Pakistan to achieve stability by aiding its own govt.? Sarah Palin.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, January 25, 2009 6:09 PM

Not happy.
I only hope Obama is yelling at someone using words that cannot be made public.
This surprised me.
Could it be left-over orders from the last administration that haven't been specifically countermanded yet that were being followed?
*hopes*

The not-laughing Chrisisall

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, January 25, 2009 6:46 PM

Rahmbo.

Expect fallout.

Don't expect it to be public.

-F

WHOZIT

Sunday, January 25, 2009 7:05 PM

AND they're sending 20,000 more troops to Afghanistan. Notice that now the election is over we've heard nothing about Iraq, is it still there?

I'm going to microwave a bagel and have sex with it - Peter Griffin

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, January 25, 2009 7:05 PM

I know, I read the hope in the responses, that it is not in fact that "Obama ordered these attacks," as reported. It's possible. If so, I think, though he doesn't have to make the evisceration public, he needs to make a public statement. I'm on multiple lists, so I also got ones blaming Gates and Hillary.

Couple things do disturb me:
1. A lot of hawk talk during the Obama campaign.
2. He dodged a question the other day about his use of the term "war on terror." He had previously said that the term and concept would have no place in his administration.

I'm willing to adopt a wait and see attitude, but I'm not alone in losing patience real fast. The world is going to lose patience.

Obama has also denounced the tactics of random bombing before. It's possible that this was not his call, if so, he has to denounce it, and I think at least one head should roll.

Not literally, but that's okay to. All reports say 14 civilians in a target country to which we are still allied, including one entire family, alone in their home with no militants or al qaeda connections. I think that if it's one of the above, executing them on the capital steps would be an effective means of preventing it from happening again. Oh, and btw, yes, he does have the power to do so. It's treason to launch an attack on the US and her allies, and treason is a capital crime. He could go all Chairman Mao on them if he wanted to.

All I'm saying is: God I don't want eight more years of this.

Also, from a selfish angle: The world learned to hate the Bush Administration. Now it can learn to hate America like it hates Israel. Oh, Socialist Paradise Sweden is having riots today after a pro-Israeli demonstration was overwhelmed by attacking onlookers. Oh, this just gets better and better. I wonder which will be the first major world power to declare war on the US?

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, January 25, 2009 7:07 PM

Whozit:
1. Yes, 30,000, 22,000 of which are coming from Iraq.
2. Cut out the bagel bit, it's old, stale, and though sometimes I want to take you seriously, I can't. It's really in your best interests.

WHOZIT

Sunday, January 25, 2009 7:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Whozit:
1. Yes, 30,000, 22,000 of which are coming from Iraq.
2. Cut out the bagel bit, it's old, stale, and though sometimes I want to take you seriously, I can't. It's really in your best interests.

Bagel bit stale

CHRISISALL

Sunday, January 25, 2009 8:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Rahmbo.

Can we leave the movies outta this?

The RL Chrisisall

PIZMOBEACH

Sunday, January 25, 2009 8:46 PM

OB said he would do this kind of thing back in Aug of 2007, even said that we'd "take things into our own hands" if Pakistan failed to act on credible evidence of Taliban or Al Qaeda activity inside Pakistan's own border.

He also said:

"It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.

The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Above all, I will send a clear message: we will not repeat the mistake of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal. As 9/11 showed us, the security of Afghanistan and America is shared. And today, that security is most threatened by the al Qaeda and Taliban sanctuary in the tribal regions of northwest Pakistan."

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php

He sent Petraeus to Pakistan the first moment he could. If you think they didn't know and ok this I think you're mistakened. Pakistan is a mess right now, and getting closer to being in a stalemate with the Talibs.

You can't talk to the Taliban.

"Last year, 70 police officers were beheaded, shot or otherwise slain in Swat, and 150 wounded, said Malik Naveed Khan, the police inspector general for the North-West Frontier Province.

Without more forceful and concerted action by the government, some warn, the Taliban threat in Pakistan is bound to spread."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/world/asia/25swat.html?_r=1&ref=worl
d

So the public face of the new leadership of Pakistan is, "how could they?" and the private one is probably more like, "help us!"

So the Pakistanis that were quoted said that the US strike killed all civilians? Really? Wonder if they'd wake up with their own heads on their bodies if they said otherwise...

KWICKO

Sunday, January 25, 2009 9:30 PM

I'm not too keen on this, for reasons you've already stated. I keep HOPING that it's going to be different, but who knows? Maybe that was the hope we were voting for: the hope that it won't be just more of the same.

I'd really like to get more info on WHERE in Pakistan these folk were, though. I mean to say there is a difference (albeit a subtle one) if they were 100 miles inside Pakistan, versus launching attacks in Afghanistan and them hopping a couple hundred yards across the border, saying "Nyah-nyah-na-na-na!" at us as we sat by impotently.

In other words, if you're sitting on the Texas side of the Rio Grande and someone starts taking potshots at you from the Mexican side, how pissed are you going to be if a Predator drone goes ahead and takes them out while they're standing there shooting at you? (And that may sound crazy, but I actually know a guy in real life who was shot from across the Rio Grande while he was rafting the river, and very nearly died from his wounds. Some of his friends DID die from theirs. And our government did squat about it. )

I'm reserving judgment for the moment, hoping to get more facts.

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, January 25, 2009 10:46 PM

Chris, The Rahm is for Rahm, and the BO is for Barack Obama. Rahmbo :)

PIZMO

[open season]

Quote:
OB said he would do this kind of thing back in Aug of 2007

BO, or BHO, he's not Korean. He said last resort, that first we would assist the govt. by giving them aid in dealing with, and then, I think there was a time period (longer than SIX DAYS) mentioned.

There's only two options now

1. Someone under his command took too much perogative, or
2. Obama is just more of the same.

BTW, the fact that he said it at all made it impossible for me to vote for him. I had similar problems with McCain and Obama supporting the Afghan surge. I thought of writing in Sarah Palin :)

Quote:
if Pakistan failed to act on credible evidence of Taliban or Al Qaeda activity inside Pakistan's own border.

He actually said "If we have a credible intelligence consensus" He hasn't even has time for people to do one intelligence report. These things take months. What is he doing? Relying on Bush's intelligence reports? I thought this guy was supposed to be some sort of genius.

Quote:
He also said:

Citation please. There were quotes here, and Pakistan was in them. Actually I'm tempted to believe you, but

Quote:
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php

Oh.

And someone voted for this guy? This sounds like a recipe for WWIII. I mean we already know that Russia is backing the opposition in Afganistan and that China will back the opposition in Pakistan, do we want to be in a two front war against Russia and China?

Quote:
He sent Petraeus to Pakistan the first moment he could. If you think they didn't know and ok this I think you're mistakened.

I must be mistakened.

Any Pakistani govt. that supports or allows the slaughter of its own people will fall, and more importantly, deserves to fall.

Quote:
Pakistan is a mess right now

Ah yes, pick up the white man's burden.
The US is so good at fixing ALL the worlds problems... with bombs. Yes, that works SO well, all of the time.

Quote:
You can't talk to the Taliban.

Not unless you speak their language.

PIZMO, you seemed so reasonable, never pegged you for a closet neocon.

Quote:
Without more forceful and concerted action by the government, some warn, the Taliban threat in Pakistan is bound to spread.

Ah, bombs. And, also f^&k the NYT. It's hardly neutral on the subject of Islam.

Quote:
So the public face of the new leadership of Pakistan is, "how could they?" and the private one is probably more like, "help us!"

Then the govt. will fall. As Musharraf said, these may be an anti-govt. faction, but they're also a sizeable % of my population. Going to war with them, shooting and bombing them would unite all of the Pashtun, that would create a civil war. And they would win, because the other people would sympathize with them, and you'd end up with a radical islamic govt.

Quote:
So the Pakistanis that were quoted said that the US strike killed all civilians? Really? Wonder if they'd wake up with their own heads on their bodies if they said otherwise...

No, they said 14 were civilians. conflicting reports of 4, 6, and 8 militants, but all reports said 14 civilians. Surprised at this accuracy? This is because the villagers knew the civilians. They didn't know the militants. They can easily say: These 14 people, we knew them, some were women and children, and these were good family men; about the others they said: I don't know these guys, they come from somewhere else, maybe they're al qaeda, mujahideen, taliban, but I don't know them.

for the record, I'm shocked at the attitude. I'll reserve the epithets for later :)

The specifics of the incident are not as important as that the Obama administration is upscaling a war only six days in. This is bad. Apocalyptically bad.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, January 25, 2009 10:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
the Obama administration is upscaling a war only six days in. This is bad. Apocalyptically bad.

At least the hawks of this country will be happy.

The sad Chrisisall

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, January 25, 2009 10:58 PM

Quote:
I'm not too keen on this

No kidding ;)

Quote:
I keep HOPING that it's going to be different

Ah, the audacity ran over the hope.

Quote:
Maybe that was the hope we were voting for: the hope that it won't be just more of the same.

Yeah, that's what Quiggley is all about: Become your own opposition and run against your own unpopularity. "every eight years they can throw the bastards out with no real effect on policy."

Quote:
WHERE in Pakistan these folk were

One village in N. Waziristan, one in S. Waziristan. Definitely "within Pakistan" was the target. They were predator drone attacks to specific targets. One was probably a militant group, or some vagrant group, two were civilian residences.

So, is this collateral damage? This is not what Obama said when he said "No more war on terror" and when he said "we're not going to do this with bombs" If you want to only fight the terrorists, you have to go after them, not just start bombing rural houses.

Quote:
In other words, if you're sitting on the Texas side of the Rio Grande and someone starts taking potshots at you from the Mexican side, how pissed are you going to be if a Predator drone goes ahead and takes them out while they're standing there shooting at you? (And that may sound crazy, but I actually know a guy in real life who was shot from across the Rio Grande while he was rafting the river, and very nearly died from his wounds. Some of his friends DID die from theirs. And our government did squat about it. )

The targets were houses in remote regions, programmed in, but it hardly matters, it's against all kinds of international law. It also fucks the US internationally.

Quote:
I'm reserving judgment for the moment, hoping to get more facts.

Me too, but only for the apology of Barack Obama and the resignation of someone. Whoever ordered the attacks. Because I know damn well that there wasn't time to get adequate intelligence estimates, correlated them, get an okay from Pakistan, (should the UN come in here somewhere?) and then use all other possible means before using force to take out the individual targets, (airlift in, get the guys, don't just bomb random houses). If this is Obama's "last resort" method, than it's as bad as Bush's. At least.

Whoever ordered these attacks did not follow the process that Obama laid out, and let the axe fall on the head that did it, regardless of whether that was some schmuck on the field, Robert Gates, or Barack Obama. I'm sorry. No mercy on this. We didn't buy in for WWIII thank you very much. Or even just "four more years" of the same.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, January 25, 2009 11:02 PM

{Average uneducated reactionary}
Why don't we just nuke the Taliban?
{/Average uneducated reactionary}

The Chrisisall

OUT2THEBLACK

Sunday, January 25, 2009 11:03 PM

Dedicated to the B.O. administration :

They're all still on their honeymoon
Just read the dialogue balloon
Everyone loves you--
Why should they not?
And I'm the only one who knows
That disneyland's about to close
I don't suppose youd give it a shot
Knowing all that youve got

Are cigarettes and red vines
Just close your eyes, cause, baby--
You never do know
And I'll be on the sidelines,
With my hands tied,
Watching the show

Well, it's always fun and games until
It's clear you havent got the skill
In keeping the gag from going too far
So you're running round the parking lot
'til every lightning bug is caught
Punching some pinholes
In the lid of a jar
While we wait in the car

With cigarettes and red vines
Just close your eyes, cause, baby--
You never do know
And I'll be on the sidelines,
With my hands tied,
Watching the show...

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, January 25, 2009 11:54 PM

Quote:
red vines

"Man, I hate playing vampire towns"

PIZMOBEACH

Monday, January 26, 2009 12:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
PIZMO, you seemed so reasonable, never pegged you for a closet neocon.

DT - I appreciate the candor, let 'er rip always.
I wish talking was used first too, even with a group as bloody and violent as the Taliban (everyone has a weakness, a way into their heads).
But... how do you know it wasn't?

DREAMTROVE

Monday, January 26, 2009 12:37 AM

PIZMO

I don't believe in evil. The Taliban have been talked to many times. Sometimes things go well, sometimes not. At the moment, the Russians are offering them a better deal: They are offering them a share of power in Central Asia, along with the Shiia, of course, who no one can beat.

The victims here, militant and not, were Pashtun, not Taliban, that we know of. If they were, we would talk to the Taliban, as we usually do. But these attacks do nothing but encourage the Pastun to ally themselves with the Taliban. In time, they'll overthrow Pakistan, with the support of the subcontinental ethnic groups, but only through an alliance with China and Iran.

It's a complicated situation. Dropping bombs in the middle of it 4 days into a term, as it seems to be, then that would surely blow any chance at peace.

I don't pretend to know everything, but I know the situation fairly well. I'm quite fond of Waziristan, and it's a pretty inoffensive place, with inoffensive natives. It also makes a great hiding place for enemies of authority, like the US, or Pakistan. But any govt. of Pakistan has to know that to be Pakistan, they must have the Pashtun on their side, or fail.

My guess? Someone is stirring up trouble to destabilize Pakistan. That's pretty much been Bush's policy in Afghanistan, and Iraq, with thoughts that this will destabilize the region. This will never happen. Sadistic dreamers, who kill a lot of people in the process, these neocon meddlers.

The question really become "Who?" The best defense is that it might not be Obama. He called a national security meeting directly after the attacks. It's possible Gates ordered the attacks, or some Clintonista. The best thing for Obama to do in that case is to choose a head and make it roll.

The final question that remains is does Obama intend to continue the Bush Policy, to destabilize the region in hopes that chaos spreads to Iran, and damn the civilian casualties? Or does he hope to stabilize it. If it's the former, we're all screwed. If it's the latter, then he's just gotten a major setback, and I would not put it passed the Clintonistas to deal that blow to him. Friendly fire, as it were.

It's a tricky tricky world.

HKCAVALIER

Monday, January 26, 2009 1:16 AM

But what if Pakistan is in on it as is extremely likely? And if Pakistan is in on it, could it be connected at all with Mumbai? Just thinking outloud here.

There are way too many unknowns right now. 2 rockets and we have a new GWOT? How anyone can compare these attacks on two dwellings with...100's of thousands of needless dead and maimed over 7 years on false pretences, I'm not sure. Why, oh why, jump to conclusions? I'm not happy to hear this, but dayum, ain't we jumpin' the gun here just a little? And to what purpose?

First y'all were trashing Obama before he was even elected and now you're making out like this shows we just elected Jeb. Save some of this for when (and IF) he REALLY sells us out, okay? Leave some room for your rhetoric to escalate, hm?

I'm getting more and more the sense that a lot of folks on this board, regardless of shifting circumstances, proceed from the premise: We're screwed. That doesn't give us a lot of room for nuanced analysis, methinks.

And DT, correct me if I'm wrong but the Pashtun are Sunni, yes? Never on the best terms with the Shiite Talibs, right?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

CHRISISALL

Monday, January 26, 2009 1:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

I'm getting more and more the sense that a lot of folks on this board, regardless of shifting circumstances, proceed from the premise: We're screwed. That doesn't give us a lot of room for nuanced analysis, methinks.

As always, the voice of reason.

The HKfan Chrisisall

PIRATECAT

Monday, January 26, 2009 1:56 AM

OBAMA has crossed the Rubicon. Dreamtrove this is not a war of choice. The war is to be fought. Winning does not mean anything. There is nothing to gain. Its one culture verses another culture. One's gotta go. I felt we were better with Bush than with out him. Now listening to alot of young men and women from different states who've been over there. It was interesting that the afghan pakistan border is a real war going on. In afghanistan you might deal with just angry farmers. The pakistan military is also the terrorists. From what I've heard is that they are the enemy. One case was a US Army regular was murdered by Pakistan soldiers. The major was going to be revenged by US Soliders and the state department put a squash on that. The Pakistans are aiding the terrorists. So I support Obama's actions. I did the same for Clinton. Now they represent the office that the people elected. That is your duty as a soldier. Now I wish I could say this about the ala cart liberals. I'd like to think that I don't make things political at the cost of liberty.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

DREAMTROVE

Monday, January 26, 2009 2:08 PM

HK

The Mumbai attacks, my instinctive response was, this a reason to get India into the GWOT, and a reason to invade, but not India, we'll twist this one, say they're from Pakistan.

That was with no other information. Like when I was watching 9-11, my reaction was "It wouldn't happen like that, unless there was a bomb already in the building, the concrete would collapse, but leave the metal frame standing."

These, in themselves, are not conspiracy theories. Mujahideen in India, Al Qaeda putting a bomb in the WTC before flying planes into them, perfectly logical explanations, that didn't happen to surface, but could have. If the logical explanation of the logical sequence of events fails to surface, it leads people to think elsewhere.

I'm an intensely logical person. I'm sometimes wrong, because the logical solution isn't always the correct one. But betting against it is not a good idea I've found. I'd say excepts are like gemstones on the beach, in frequency.

Here's what hit wrong about the Mumbai attacks. There was no reason. I don't believe in people who hate freedom. I believe in muslims who hate westerners, but there's no reason to travel so far. There are plenty of muslims who hate westerners right there in mumbai, and plenty of westerners to hate right there in Pakistan.

But every war needs a gulf of Tonkin. Hell, maybe we did it ourselves.

The attacks on Pakistan began under the Bush Admin, this is not a new plan, but it needed new rules:

1. an incident
2. a puppet govt.

The CIA sent in Benazir Bhutto as "Homecoming Queen" knowing that the Bhutto's were hated for being the most corrupt family in Pakistan, and that she would be assassinated. That's logical, it stirs up a revolution. This isn't theory

Of course, if the Pakistanis didn't do it, I'm sure the CIA could lend a hand. That's theory.

Just separating the two.

Benazir Bhutto's husband coming to power in a coup? That's never going to happen by popular revolt, they are hated by many in Pakistan, but it can be can be manipulated. Manipulation, coup attempt successful, new unelected probably unpopular govt. installed. That's what happened, again, fact, no theory.

CIA constructing that coup to have a "friendly govt." in place? Theory, but let's add this little fact to that theory. Asif Ali Zardari, Benazir Bhutto's husband, doesn't have an education, less than I do, he has outstanding charges for terrorism, murder and the embezzlement of one and a half billion dollars. He's worse than Ahmed Chalabi. Does this sound to you like a candidate about to be sworn in by mass popular appeal. Last time he was in town, he was run out on a rail, and ran off with a decent chunk of the treasury.

But Zardari is not an executive decision maker, he listens to his chief advisor Zalmay Khalilzad, on a level that Bush was run by Cheney and never made a single executive decision, it's very safe to say that Zalmay Khalilzad is making the executive decisions.

Zalmay Khalilzad is not just a member of the CFR and a former member of the Bush Admin. He is also a long term neocon thinktanker, he is also one of the original PNAC signatories. To say that this guy is bad news is not even scratching the surface, he called for a full on US invasion of the entire region. And he's making the executive decisions in Pakistan. And none of that is theory. And under an unelected govt. Nor is it theory that Khalilzad is a former CIA contact during the war against the USSR.

Neutral, independent govt. of Pakistan calling itself pakistan? That about as absurd as calling the Chinese Communist installed administrative centers "the govt. of Tibet" or even Taiwan, etc.

So, the issue here is that the Obama administration is carrying out a policy set up by the Bush administration to kill a bunch of rural villagers who, if they pose a threat to civilization, civilization is already doomed. I mean, North Korea is run by lunatics and has nuclear weapons. Worse yet, there are at least two muslim nations run by even worse lunatics that have even more nuclear weapon

CITIZEN

Monday, January 26, 2009 2:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
{Average uneducated reactionary}
Why don't we just nuke the Taliban?
{/Average uneducated reactionary}

{Bush}
Why don't we just bomb terrorland?
{/Bush}

Anyway, at this early stage I'd have thought the military would still be largely running on Bush Admin policy.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CHRISISALL

Monday, January 26, 2009 2:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Anyway, at this early stage I'd have thought the military would still be largely running on Bush Admin policy.

So much policy; so little time, eh?

The laughing Chrisisall

WULFENSTAR

Monday, January 26, 2009 2:54 PM

The way I read it, Obama just killed a bunch of villagers so he could show that he was able to flex his military muscles...

Right. Great.

HERO

Monday, January 26, 2009 3:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Why don't we just bomb terrorland?

Isn't that in Disney World?

I love the 'Tower of Terror'.

H

HERO

Monday, January 26, 2009 3:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I said he had 18 months unless he did something utterly moronic like attack Pakistan. This would be where he just attacked Pakistan. Meet the new president, just like the old president.

I note for the record that attacking Pakistan is a dramatic shift in US policy. This is "change" that Obama promised.

During the election he specifically said he would sit down and talk with Hamas and Iran...but that he would attack and invade Pakistan. It was an election issue. Talk with the enemy, bomb the ally, change we can believe in.

H

CHRISISALL

Monday, January 26, 2009 3:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
The way I read it, Obama just killed a bunch of villagers so he could show that he was able to flex his military muscles...

Right. Great.

Yes, he controlled the drone personally, worked the stick & pressed the buttons.
Or did it happen without his knowledge?

We need more info.

The questing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Monday, January 26, 2009 3:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Talk with the enemy, bomb the ally, change we can believe in.

That's...I mean, very clever. Were I a NeoCon I would be LOL.

The

Chrisisall

HERO

Monday, January 26, 2009 3:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Talk with the enemy, bomb the ally, change we can believe in.

That's...I mean, very clever. Were I a NeoCon I would be LOL.

Don't give me the credit...I voted for John McCain.

BTW, James Garner, Jack Kelly, and Sarah Palin are the only real Mavericks. Roger Moore, Robert Colbert, Mel Gibson, and John McCain can all bite me.

H

BYTEMITE

Monday, January 26, 2009 4:01 PM

If bombing civilians and inciting yet MORE regional wrath against is our plan for getting Osama, forget it. He hasn't been able to do much besides release videotapes anyway while he's been lying in those caves, sick and on dialysis. Screw him.

I'm more concerned about the bunches of new recruits he'll have after this. We want to fight terrorism, we need to stop giving them reasons to become terrorists.

AURAPTOR

Monday, January 26, 2009 4:12 PM

Might just be a local market thing, or possibly how things are scheduled as such, but I've heard a lot more ads on the radio for signing up with the selective service. Curious that this happens right in conjunction w/ the arrival of a new administration. And not just the same old ads recycled, but a rotation of different ads. One has an sexy sounding woman ( I forget if she's a celeb or not ) talking about men signing up. I guess sex sells in the military as well.

And some folks actualy thought Obama would be more in line w/ Kucinich and his buddy Grandfather Twilight, and think happy thoughts to keep the evil doers at bay.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

DREAMTROVE

Monday, January 26, 2009 4:35 PM

Quote:
The way I read it, Obama just killed a bunch of villagers so he could show that he was able to flex his military muscles...

Right. Great.

Wulf, yes, I think we're all thinking the same thing. It's a surprising moment of unity, actually.

Ah, the audacity of doubt.

Quote:
Talk with the enemy, bomb the ally, change we can believe in.

Hero,

Lol, and sad, but I think true. I think that Obama should have looked into the concept of treaty. This situation is bad in so many ways.
We step back from all of the obvious reasons its bad, including ending up in another war with a country that borders China in which the Chinese have every reason to arm the other side, and add this one:

Rewind to the Rwanda resolution. For those who've forgotten, this was the guy from Gabon, Kofi Annan, who wrote up a bill, at the request of the soon to exterminated Tutsi, which basically said "we're suspending the rules that say you can't go in without an official invite here so that anyone can go in and defend the Tutsi, because the govt. is the one doing the killing, and it's never going to invite you in to stop it."

Clinton ordered Albright to veto that resolution which she did, sparking a war that killed 10 million people and counting. That puts them on my all time evil list (esp. with the associated gunrunning.)

But my point here was France's vote, the only other dissenter. France abstained. Here's why:

France didn't like the genocide any more than anyone else, but they were bound by a treaty with the Hutu govt. A vote in favor of allowing an invasion against that govt. would mean that the world of France wasn't worth a dime. Their hands were tied. If they vote it down, they're evil, if they vote for it, they're word is worthless. So, they took the logical root and avoided the issue.

Now, fast forward to today. We're treaty bound to defend Pakistan against anyone that attack it, as is the UK. This was part of the condition set up in the partition of Pakistan, to prevent India from invading or some other neighboring country from opportunistically taking it over.

That's how they became an ally. But that is one of those "against all enemies" treaties, and the US and UK are both a party to this. I see that Tory leaders backed Jack Straw's assertion that there is no legal way to avoid war with the US. Of course, we consider this to be an absurdity, and should, but that means that the conclusion will not be that the UK declares war with the US, but that international law will be broken, and thus fall apart.

Furthermore: Attacking an ally you're sworn to defend, regardless of what puppet govt. you may have constructed, makes all of your treaties worthless in the eyes of the world. Who is Iraq going to trust after this? The US? Or Iran? What about Afghanistan? Or long standing allies like S. Korea? Are they going to bet on us for defense against N. Korea? Or are they over in Tokyo negotiating a new alliance with someone whose word they can actually trust?

We all know the answer to this. But on a larger scale, the US has/had allies all over the world. Without them, we have no international military presence, and ultimately no international financial presence, we become an out of work debtor nation with no allies to speak of.

Gotta go with Hero on this one, it's a suicide move.

Quote:
Yes, he controlled the drone personally, worked the stick & pressed the buttons.
Or did it happen without his knowledge?

We need more info.

Chris

Basically, yes, we're all wondering this, not precisely, but whether he ordered the attacks, or whether someone overstepped their authority. Also, how grey is that area. We all remember the issue with Flight 007. There are questions to be answered, and as I look at our domestic media, there are questions that need to be asked before they get answered. My current fear is a return to Clintonia, a land where huge genocidal campaigns go on, the nation is constantly at war, and it never makes the front page, and liberal douchebags like steven colb

CITIZEN

Monday, January 26, 2009 5:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I note for the record that attacking Pakistan is a dramatic shift in US policy. This is "change" that Obama promised.

No it isn't. There were numerous attacks across the border, just like this one, before Obama was elected, let alone inaugurated.
Datelined 7th of November, 2008:

Quote:
‘No Predators Please’

U.S. cross-border attacks on Pakistani soil are not helping the effort to fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda, says a high-ranking Pakistani official.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/168048
Datelined 12th September, 2008:

Quote:
Suspected U.S. attack kills 13 in Pakistan

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- A missile fired from a suspected U.S. pilotless drone killed at least 13 people and wounded five others Friday in a village in northwest Pakistan near the Afghan border, according to Pakistani intelligence sources.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/09/12/pakistan.missile.attack/in
dex.html
Datelined 4th September, 2008:

Quote:
Pakistani parliament condemns U.S.-led attack
Presidential frontrunner decries strike but backs U.S. in terrorism fight

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - Parliament condemned an American-led attack in Pakistani territory on Thursday after the government summoned the U.S. ambassador to protest the unusually bold raid in a troubled border region.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26540375/

Hell, even Fox News will tell you that US attacks on Pakistani soil were occuring years ago:
Saturday, January 14, 2006:

Quote:
Officials: U.S. Attack in Pakistan Targeted Al Qaeda Hideout

DAMADOLA, Pakistan — Pakistan on Saturday condemned a purported CIA airstrike on a border village that officials said unsuccessfully targeted Al Qaeda's second-in-command, and said it was protesting to the U.S. Embassy over the attack that killed at least 17 people.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181584,00.html

The above is why I wonder if it was Obama's policy, or if he simply hasn't changed that policy. Whether he will or not is another matter of course, I can't say whether he agrees with it, or wishes to keep it, just that these cross border strikes aren't new. I rather doubt clearance is given per operation, I suspect it's more a matter of someone asking permission to conduct these cross border operations as and when. Though I do wonder how much outrage there was, when Bush was doing it...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CHRISISALL

Monday, January 26, 2009 5:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Though I do wonder how much outrage there was, when Bush was doing it...

Don't seem...ah...to remember any.

The searching Chrisisall

WULFENSTAR

Monday, January 26, 2009 5:33 PM

So if Bush was doing it, and there was no outrage...its ok that Obama (with all his propoganda of Hope & Change) is doing it, also?

Wrong is wrong, no matter who is doing it, or for what reason.

CHRISISALL

Monday, January 26, 2009 5:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

Wrong is wrong, no matter who is doing it, or for what reason.

True...

The equal Chrisisall

CITIZEN

Monday, January 26, 2009 5:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
So if Bush was doing it, and there was no outrage...its ok that Obama (with all his propoganda of Hope & Change) is doing it, also?

I didn't say that. I said I wondered why Bush and Obama doing the same thing, draws two wildly different responses from some. It's not Chris or I showing hypocrisy (I'm not accusing you of it either, btw).

At any rate, there's no actual evidence Obama did do it. It is actually far more likely to be a continuation of Bush Administration policy, since he likely signed off on policy rather than on a per mission basis, and this attack is clearly the same that Bush's Administration was conducting. If it happens again, if Obama doesn't change policy, then that's the same as creating it himself, and by all means throw him to the wolves. But I don't see how you can condemn someone for a previous presidents policy that he hasn't reversed yet.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

HERO

Monday, January 26, 2009 7:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Wrong is wrong, no matter who is doing it, or for what reason.

Didn't have you pegged as a Calvinist...

H

HERO

Monday, January 26, 2009 7:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
At any rate, there's no actual evidence Obama did do it. It is actually far more likely to be a continuation of Bush Administration policy

Obama's first briefing as President was on military operations and National Security. If he left the policies unchanged after that, they are Obama policies.

Sure, he was a little busy on January 20 to get into the details, but being late for your ball is excusable if your taking an extra ten minutes to fight the war.

H

CHRISISALL

Monday, January 26, 2009 7:17 PM

And you're a Hobbsist, eh Hero?

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Monday, January 26, 2009 7:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Obama's first briefing as President was on military operations and National Security.

I'm sure he noted this:

Quote:

Item # 1793: Pronounce incorrectly the name of the leader of Iran.
Item # 1794: Use drone to destroy the village the next attack comes from in Pakistan.
Item # 1795: Get Dick a wheelchair that looks cool & has working brakes.

The laughing Chrisisall

CITIZEN

Monday, January 26, 2009 7:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Sure, he was a little busy on January 20 to get into the details, but being late for your ball is excusable if your taking an extra ten minutes to fight the war.

He's got eight years of policies to undo, and he's had 6 days to do it. It's only God who managed to create a new world in six days, and God had to rest on the seventh. You need to remember that Obama is but a man, not the messiah.

I also doubt that his briefing included every single mission briefing and policy enacted by the Bush administration over the last 8 years. At least he isn't refusing to come back from holiday during this crisis eh ;).

At any rate, I still want to know where you're outrage is for the years that Bush was doing this, I won't go so far as to ask you to acknowledge how wrong you were when you said that this attack is a change in policy though.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

DREAMTROVE

Monday, January 26, 2009 8:55 PM

Um, okay.

Citizen is right that Bush bombed Pakistan. The Bush line on this is "oops" but I don't buy it.

Hero is right that when Obama reviewed the policies to and okayed them, they are Obama policies. Now maybe he did not want this, but he should speak up.

The last argument doesn't hold water. Whether or not you bomb your friends is probably item #1, actually, Pakistan is probably on the top 5 items, along with Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran. I'm sure it came up at the first meeting.

Oh, there was some more change on a different topic. Obama reversed fuel standards limitations. I have to go post that.

CITIZEN

Monday, January 26, 2009 9:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
The last argument doesn't hold water. Whether or not you bomb your friends is probably item #1, actually, Pakistan is probably on the top 5 items, along with Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran. I'm sure it came up at the first meeting.

I doubt it. I rather doubt the policy is "do we bomb this guy?". I very much doubt it's number one on the list. The actual orders will be some esoteric order signed by bush years ago with a name like "Directive #1532567: Authorisation for cross border anti-Taliban Operations". And I guarantee it won't be #1 on any list with a nice simple title like "Hey Prez, should we Bomb Pakistan, yes or no."

General policy toward Pakistan is probably high on the agenda, but that doesn't mean specific orders relating to these cross border missions is, especially since they most likely fall under Afghanistan military policy, not administration diplomatic policy toward Pakistan. It's a bureaucracy, there'll be lots of directives on the books that Bush put through, that Obama won't even know about. You can of course say that that is incompetence, or you can take a realistic view and realise that government is a huge beast and wading through it all would take a life time, and he does have to fit at least four years of presidency in there somewhere as well.

What doesn't hold water is the assumption that he defiantly knew and approved it. And that is all I'm arguing against. I haven't said it is defiantly not his doing, I said it is highly unlikely, and that there are more likely explanations that have basically been ignored. If this is still going on a month from now, IF he doesn't reverse policy, THEN you'll know. Right now, though, you don't, and it's the assumption that it must be this or must be that that does not hold water.

I do note, though, that Hero called this a war. It was my understanding that, constitutionally, only congress can declare war, and they haven't done that since the 1940's. Is this an admission that Bush acted unconstitutionally?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

DREAMTROVE

Monday, January 26, 2009 10:48 PM

Citizen, as usual, we disagree. I think the predator missions were near the top of the agenda. I credit Barack with some brains. It's far from obscure that you send robots to war against an ally.

Top on the agenda was undoubtedly Gaza.

CITIZEN

Monday, January 26, 2009 11:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Citizen, as usual, we disagree. I think the predator missions were near the top of the agenda. I credit Barack with some brains. It's far from obscure that you send robots to war against an ally.

It's not about him having brains or not. Someone can be intelligent and also not omnipresent. At any rate you don't know, you think that it is the top of the list with big flashing lights and there's no way he couldn't have known because that circumstance supports your case. I'm merely saying you don't know, and you won't know until his reaction becomes apparent. If there's more attacks, or not, then you know.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

DREAMTROVE

Monday, January 26, 2009 11:23 PM

No, I don't know, I was only going by Barack Obama saying "Gaza is at the top of the agenda." [/sarcasm]
It wasn't a guess.

CITIZEN

Monday, January 26, 2009 11:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
No, I don't know, I was only going by Barack Obama saying "Gaza is at the top of the agenda." [/sarcasm]
It wasn't a guess.

Hmm, and since I was talking about the predator drone attacks (the topic of this thread, and what I quoted...), not Gaza, I guess we can still go with the "Guess not Fact" thing.

Unless you have some evidence proving he knew about them before hand?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

PIRATENEWS

Monday, January 26, 2009 11:56 PM

NoBama sending robot UAV Terminators to bomb a nation that can retaliate with NUKES should get him committed to the loonybin for insane suicidal tendencies.

So NoBama murder count is at 14, as of yesterday. Not counting his granny in Hawaii. Or the gay organ player at Rev Wright's church. Or 1,500 black Christians in Kenya.

Quote:

Obama's Jewish Polish advisor Zbigniew Brezinski founded AllCIAduh, hanging out with USAma Bin Laden in Pakistan

(AP) – Continuing a White House ritual begun by Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush left a note in the Oval Office for President-elect Barack Obama, wishing him well as he takes the reins of the executive branch.

Quote:
THE WHITE HOUSE

Dear President Barack,

Cheney made me do it. Please don't arrest me!

Sincerely,

George W Bush

SHINYGOODGUY

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 12:53 AM

There's more to this than meets the eye, but here's something that I read somewhere that, at first glance, I felt wasn't true - Obama would turn out to be more conservative than people would suspect.

But I look at this air strike as more of the same which leads me to think several things such as:

1. The cozy and somewhat surreal relationship between Clinton and Poppa Bush. What's up with that?
Is the elder Bush still controlling things behind the scenes from his watchtower?

2. What was in that note that W left for Obama?
Was it really the Book of Secrets everyone talks about? Or is it his "intelligence" reports (and we all know how that turned out). One has to wonder what intelligence was passed on to the President by the W Administration. I wouldn't put anything past Cheney and his little War machine (remember Cheney was with Poppa Bush in his administration, hmmmmmm coincidence?).

3. I found a report by CNN that states that this "bombing" by drones has been going on for quite some time in that region of Pakistan and that this latest salvo is nothing new, except for the fact that it took place under a new president.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/01/23/pakistan.missile/index.htm
l?iref=newssearch

4. Obama had made it known, on several occasions, that he was going after the Taliban in Afghanistan and into Pakistan strongholds. So the only surprise for me was how decidedly quickly he struck. But more info is needed, and here I will venture a guess that we, the general public, might never get all the facts in the latest turn of events in that region.

So, although it is true that this throws a monkey wrench into the Muddle East (yes, I meant to say muddle) one has to take a "wait and see" attitude, at least until the dust settles, before condemning the new president for his actions. Did the president act responsibly in allowing such airstrikes to continue? Was he given indisputable intelligence that would cause him to act?

I must admit that I was not surprised when Bush attacked Iraq, but I am somewhat shocked that Obama called for such action in a highly volatile region. This is disconcerting to me, but I will reserve judgment until I hear the president's thinking on this. Jury's out.

SGG

Tawabawho?

PIZMOBEACH

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 12:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Unless you have some evidence proving he knew about them before hand?

Hey, let's not let facts slow the hate parade - they have a schedule.

HERO

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 1:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I do note, though, that Hero called this a war. It was my understanding that, constitutionally, only congress can declare war, and they haven't done that since the 1940's. Is this an admission that Bush acted unconstitutionally?

No. The legal use of military power outside a formal Declaration of War has been well established..."since the 1940's".

Korea, Vietnam, Libya, Kuwait, etc.

You could argue that Congress acted unconstitutionally by giving the President authorization for every military action since 1945...but you'd lose. In fact I suspect the Court has ruled on that issue at some point.

Makes sense when you consider that, and this is only one example, it would take about five minutes for a surprise SLBM launched from a Soviet sub to hit Washington obliterating Congress BEFORE they get the opportunity to listen to a fine speech, debate a bit, and then call for a formal vote.

H

HERO

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 1:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Hero is right that when Obama reviewed the policies to and okayed them, they are Obama policies. Now maybe he did not want this, but he should speak up.

Jan 20, 2009. Military briefing:

Obama option #1:
"Ok, guys. Sounds like you got this whole war thing under control. We'll take it up tomorrow, gotta run, wife and I gotta shindig...say which way to the residence?"

Obama option #2:
"Ok, guys. Sounds like we need more time to really get into the details of what we are doing here...lets take this up first thing tomorrow, till then hold off on any new operations or bombing countries other then Iraq or Afganistan. Gotta run...oops thats the closet, which way...never mind, I'll figure it out."

He chose option #1.

H

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 1:31 AM

SGG, very thoughtful post, a lot to gnaw on there. I want to comment on those interrelationships. I'll get back to this. The shocking thing to me was that Obama would use predator drone airstrikes. Robot bombings clash radically with the now tarnished nice guy image he's been polishing for the last two years.

I knew he had a policy of getting into this mess, why I couldn't vote for him, but I was expecting time, planning, caution, and subtlety, maybe some CIA, maybe some special forces, etc. Small rambo stuff, not just go all skynet on us, first week out of the gate.

Characterwise... I'm doing something else, I'll get back to this

HERO

This is one of my brother's areas. He says that since the UN basically outlawed war, war had to evolve. Now it exists in four basic ways

1. The UN backed intervention. This could include arguably Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia.

2. The invitation invasion. The recognized host govt. invites you in to help them defend. This includes Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, etc.

3. The "illegal war": You have no UN resolution and no invite, but you go in anyway. This is like Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait. Anyone is basically allowed to go in and stop you at this point. That gives two creds for the US in Kuwait.

4. Civil war. This is an internal dispute, and intervention is a violation of national sovereignty.

#4 represents probably the biggest hole in UN logic, because it prevented intervention in Rwanda. That's why Clinton's veto of the Rwandan exception resolution was a blatantly evil act. But it's a problem again in Sudan, which is waging war not just in Darfur, but in all the southern provinces. Also, Ethiopia. Some of that mess was cleared up by recognition of Eritrea.

Now Russia in S. Ossetia was an invitation. The US in Pakistan is iffy. We have created a puppet govt. where the defacto head of state is a US govt. official. The international recognition of that govt. is in question, but it's certainly a tyranny, with one of the lowest approval ratings of any govt. The sitting figurehead of state is wanted for murder, conspiracy to commit terrorism, and a 1.5 billion dollar fraud. Of course the US could buy international recognition for a puppet govt., and then get its invite. Sure, it's only a matter of time before the rest of the Bhutto clan is executed, but rewind a sec. and you see an additional flaw in the UN: Set up a puppet govt. and then bribe govts. to recognize it. Or, absorb it, have your puppet govt. willingly surrender, and make it a member territory, and then any conflict is "internal" like China and Russia like to do.

So, it's unquestionably a flawed system. I believe there can be no open declarations of war between member states of the united nations.

This is a problem for the moron idea of war with Iran: We will never get an invite, it's highly unlikely we'll get a UN resolution, Bush tried to provoke them into invading someone else, to justify a response, leaving us with only one option, the illegal war. The main problem with the illegal war is not its name and connotation, it's that international law allows anyone to defend. Russia and China are both desperate to see us out of the mideast, they would defend anyone it was legal to defend.

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 2:46 AM

Okay, SGG, back to your comments about connections. (continuation of the above.)

IMHO, encapsulated analysis:

The globalist movement has lots of clans, conspiracies, gangs, and just regular old special interests. Like any movement, it moves in a particular direction because there are a number of groups aligned more or less in that direction.

That said, some are powerful globally, some locally. The Bush-Clinton thing is a marriage made in hell. Bush Sr. has his little CIA international empire, and Clinton has his Texarkana drug empire. Cheney is part of the military industrialists, and also has oil connections. Bush has oil connections.

Cheney's globalist group is separate from Bush's. He is bent on ...

Well, rewind. Cheney isn't an entity. He's 1/2 of a team, life long, it's been Cheney/Rumsfeld. Rummy is a hardcore MIC guy, and a member of the asymmetrical warfare crowd, which is like 7th day adventists of military science. The trick twist to the asymmetrical warfare crowd is that they try to convince you that they are trying to restore balance, and that the threat du jour, like terrorism, is creating imbalance. Really, the asymmetricalists want to create an imbalance, so they can dominate.

Cheney is also part of the oil tyranny crowd. This crowd believes that they can hold the world hostage by controlling its energy supply. Eventually, they figure, nations would cry uncle, and change policy.

Along the way on any of these ideologies, personal or group greed can take over an f&*k things up, but I'm just discussing the ideologies themselves.

So, Cheney had a big fight with Bush Sr., (Bush Sr. wouldn't invade Iraq) and switched to support Clinton. The Perot campaign got a huge underhanded influx of support, and like most third party guys, he didn't know, but he knew enough to play Clinton for control of 1st term fiscal policy (another long story.)

Anyway, the Clinton empire was born. Or put in power. Clintons are gangsta types, I think they're after themselves, money, power, drugs, not unlike Bushes. It took a long time before the Clintons and Bushes really joined forces. But these are just petty power cabals that are after themselves, and behind the scenes, more targeted ideologues are pushing them into policy.

The one world crowd, CFR, is really looking for permanent global domination, and finds people without scruples easy to manipulate, or work with. As do most agenda globalist groups, like the corrupt banker crowd, and sure, there's some cross over there.

Where Obama fits in? Is he the pretty face for the new Clinton admin? Or the ugly globalist goons behind the curtain?

Wait and see I guess. There was no denouncement of the attacks, no apology, I have to assume that Obama is on board with this idea. We'll know for sure when the next one hits, because now we are certain he has held a national security meeting on this precise issue, directly after the last attack.

It's possible that Obama is an ideologue with his own agenda, and willing to compromise everything else in order to achieve it.

Just some random thoughts on the matter

CITIZEN

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 12:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
No. The legal use of military power outside a formal Declaration of War has been well established..."since the 1940's".

Korea, Vietnam, Libya, Kuwait, etc.

Doesn't prove war can constitutionally be declared by an entity other than Congress, just that war has been declared. Though of course most of the above weren't 'wars' they were 'police actions'.

Quote:

You could argue that Congress acted unconstitutionally by giving the President authorization for every military action since 1945...but you'd lose. In fact I suspect the Court has ruled on that issue at some point.

Ah, but they didn't declare war, that's the point.

Quote:
Makes sense when you consider that, and this is only one example, it would take about five minutes for a surprise SLBM launched from a Soviet sub to hit Washington obliterating Congress BEFORE they get the opportunity to listen to a fine speech, debate a bit, and then call for a formal vote.

I'm sure Nuclear war with the Russians was fore-front of the founding fathers minds.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 12:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Now Russia in S. Ossetia was an invitation.

Georgia (the only legitimate and recognised government in the region) invited the Russian's in to fight them?

CITIZEN

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 12:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Shinygoodguy:
So, although it is true that this throws a monkey wrench into the Muddle East (yes, I meant to say muddle) one has to take a "wait and see" attitude, at least until the dust settles, before condemning the new president for his actions. Did the president act responsibly in allowing such airstrikes to continue? Was he given indisputable intelligence that would cause him to act?

I must admit that I was not surprised when Bush attacked Iraq, but I am somewhat shocked that Obama called for such action in a highly volatile region. This is disconcerting to me, but I will reserve judgment until I hear the president's thinking on this. Jury's out.

Indeed.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 1:21 PM

Quote:
CITIZEN
Georgia (the only legitimate and recognised government in the region) invited the Russian's in to fight them?

Good point. Though Russia and I think one other country recognized S. Ossetia and Abkhazia, the UN did not. The Govt. of Georgia did not. I guess this falls under meddling in the inside affairs of another member state.

The same argument could be made for Kosovo, the war has NATO backing, I'm not sure it had UN backing, but there was a UN condemnation of Serbia.

Did Russia seek a UN resolution against Georgia for cutting off supplies to S. Ossetia?

I suspect that the war was a PR stunt. Russia had been sort of dismissed by other world powers as an ex-superpower, and afterwords, they were back on the superpower list.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 1:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Good point. Though Russia and I think one other country recognized S. Ossetia and Abkhazia, the UN did not. The Govt. of Georgia did not. I guess this falls under meddling in the inside affairs of another member state.
...
Did Russia seek a UN resolution against Georgia for cutting off supplies to S. Ossetia?

That was essentially my take. As far as the UN is concerned Russia invaded sovereign territory. Russia did attempt to get a resolution, but they didn't get one. Off hand I forget if they waited for a vote or not.

Quote:
I suspect that the war was a PR stunt. Russia had been sort of dismissed by other world powers as an ex-superpower, and afterwords, they were back on the superpower list.

I think Putin, sorry Medvedev, wanted to flex his muscle, he's doing it a lot in all sorts of ways. Holding Europe to ransom over fuel supplies, and sending Aircraft close to British airspace, so they have to be warned away by the RAF for instance. If the UN hadn't been ignored by the allies when invading Iraq I don't think he'd have gone ahead with the invasion, but the UN has been shown to be something only 'lesser' states have to listen too recently.

Quote:
The same argument could be made for Kosovo, the war has NATO backing, I'm not sure it had UN backing, but there was a UN condemnation of Serbia.

It had Security Council backing, which is UN military backing.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 2:49 PM

Quote:
Off hand I forget if they waited for a vote or not.

Learning from us :) Why bother to wait for the results? Bush tried to get a second Iraq resolution with explicit language allowing the use of force, but it failed. He had to resort to just stretching the interpretation of the first.

Quote:
I think Putin, sorry Medvedev

lol

Quote:
Re: Kosovo
It had Security Council backing, which is UN military backing.

I couldn't find it. Link?

HERO

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 3:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
HERO

This is one of my brother's areas. He says that since the UN basically outlawed war, war had to evolve.

The UN has no legal authority over its member states.

The US can choose to go to war. The UN can complain...but it cannot act. The only body through which action can be taken is the Security Council. That means that so long as the US has an ally such as Britain (who would likely support US action in Iran), then the UN cannot make any sort of a finding as to the nature of the conflict.

The UN has only the power we choose to give it. No other nation has ever shown the will to be the UN's backbone. Iran could bluster and complain...but it would amount to nothing. Only the crazy-talker peace community would even notice...and they would be out in the streets talking about 'making love not war' regardless of the circumstances.

H

CORNCOBB

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 4:21 PM

I am hugely disappointed. While I never thought Obama would be perfect (since he's bound to be under pressure from all the militants and power-mongers)I at least thought he was decent and honest and would get away from Bush's approach. I'm a liberal, I want to believe Obama's good man, but I can't deny the evidence of my eyes. This flies in the face of so much Obama claims to stand for. This is a man who has openly condemned the over-use of airstrikes due to civilian fatalities and promised to restructure the US military accordingly. He has also just days ago extended an olive branch to all America's former enemies. I sincerely hope this isn't a sign of things to come, because if it is then Obama has done a complete 360 within days of being sworn in, which would make him the most dishonest politician in history, rather than the most honest.

"Gorramit Mal... I've forgotten my line."

CITIZEN

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 4:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I couldn't find it. Link?

Quote:
The parties agreed to a ceasefire, which had begun in October 1995, withdrawal of UNPROFOR and deployment of a NATO-led multinational Implementation Force, to be known as IFOR. On 15 December, the Security Council endorsed the establishment of a High Representative by the London Peace Implementation Conference to mobilize, guide and coordinate the activities of the civilian organizations and agencies involved with the civilian aspects of the Peace Agreement. On 20 December, IFOR took over from UNPROFOR, and on 21 December, the Council decided to establish the United Nations International Police Task Force (IPTF) and a United Nations civilian office, brought together as the United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMIBH).

http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/pressrels/2001/sc7150.html

Sorry, it occurs that we maybe talking at crossed wires. The Security Council did authorise some action in Bosnia, other wise there wouldn't be any possibility of UN peacekeepers. It didn't authorise air-strikes which were undertaken by NATO, partly using the defence of the UN Peacekeepers as a reasoning. In fact that's another reason why Russia may have gone into Georgia, they didn't like NATO's attacks at all.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 4:26 PM

Quote:
The UN has no legal authority over its member states.

No, like mcdonalds, the only thing that they can do is kick you out.

Of course, the US govt is run by globalists and some well intentioned internationalists, and they want to stay in. A smarter customer might go to a different restaurant.

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 4:44 PM

Quote:
CORNCOBB
I am hugely disappointed. While I never thought Obama would be perfect (since he's bound to be under pressure from all the militants and power-mongers)I at least thought he was decent and honest and would get away from Bush's approach. I'm a liberal, I want to believe Obama's good man, but I can't deny the evidence of my eyes. This flies in the face of so much Obama claims to stand for. This is a man who has openly condemned the over-use of airstrikes due to civilian fatalities and promised to restructure the US military accordingly. He has also just days ago extended an olive branch to all America's former enemies. I sincerely hope this isn't a sign of things to come, because if it is then Obama has done a complete 360 within days of being sworn in, which would make him the most dishonest politician in history, rather than the most honest.

That last part, I think there's some very tough competition for.

He did a 360 on his cabinet. He said during the campaign "my cabinet will be this, [suggested names], it will definitely be made up of the best people for the job, and people who will disagree with me, challenge me, not a crew of yes men" and then, here came the crew of crooked yes men. But we all were willing to bend a little bit to say "well, he didn't have all the power, the Clintonistas pulled the strings."

On this one, I have to agree. The defense, when it comes at all, which is pretty rare, seems to be "well, Bush did stuff like this." And I have to say "Is this our goal? To have another G.W. Bush? Four more years, is that what the people voted for, is that change they can believe in?"

I can also get the possibility of this was a screw up by someone in his administration, but I can't that on faith. If that's the case, or even if it isn't, any non-evil politician, (and even a few evil ones) would have the common decency to make a public apology. It's gotta start out with "This is a tragedy, and a terrible mistake, and it's my mistake. Here's what I'm going to do so that it doesn't happen again." If he comes out with a "we thought there were terrorists there" hell, throw him to the wolves. If he says nothing, then its four more years guys, get ready.

This is where Clinton totally lost any chance of redemption for me. He came back after the Waco thing. At the time, supposedly Al Gore was in charge, but the testimony said Hillary gave the green light, and Reno gave the order, Wesley carried it out. But Clinton's first words should have been "This is my mistake, the buck stops here, I set a policy, I didn't see oversee its execution, and tragedy resulted, and the blame belongs right here." Instead, he opened with "We have reason to believe that these children [whom he had just killed] were being abused." At that point I said, f^&k him. Hang him high, impeach him. Hell, that would have saved millions of lives. By the Ford rule it would have been say hello to President Paul Tsongas, maybe Jerry Brown.

I don't think this is an impeachable offense, whether or not it's forgiveable depends on whether or not he asks for it, and admits it.

Otherwise I'm forced to conclude that he's just the charismatic frontman for the next Clintonista regime, which is no better than the Bushes, I'm not even sure it's not the same thing.

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 4:50 PM

Quote:
Sorry, it occurs that we maybe talking at crossed wires. The Security Council did authorise some action in Bosnia, other wise there wouldn't be any possibility of UN peacekeepers. It didn't authorise air-strikes which were undertaken by NATO, partly using the defence of the UN Peacekeepers as a reasoning. In fact that's another reason why Russia may have gone into Georgia, they didn't like NATO's attacks at all.

That's what I thought. They authorized the partitioning of Bosnia and the arms embargo, but not the Kosovo operation or the airstrikes on serbia. The difference being that Bosnia was an independent recognized nation, and Kosovo was a province of Serbia. Attacking Serbia itself was more questionable, like the bombing of Baghdad, particularly targeting civilian populations. There was an outroar at the time from some of the anti-milosevic civilian areas which were hit in both Serbia proper and Kosovo. We can claim this was an error, but war crimes are there to say "hey, err on the side of caution. If you're sure it's the enemy, then don't bomb it."

CORNCOBB

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 8:17 PM

Agreed, agreed, agreed and agreed.
I see several possible expalantions, which I'll split into those I thik would be good (or acceptable), and those that would make me worry about Obama, who up until now i had a lot of respect for.

The Good:
1. This was a mistake, or some order left over from Bush, he'll apologise and correct policies.

2. This was a one off surgical strike, to prevent an imminent disaster, and all due care was taken to make sure no innocents would be harmed. I'm not sure I'd buy this if he made such a claim though, unless there was good evidence.

The Bad:
1. He's a puppet, or at least under pressure from the same section of the Democrats who made sure hundreds of thousands of children died in Iraq during clinton's era.

2. He's trying to prevent bipartisanship by taking a 'strong' stance against terror. Even though I could see his thinking on this, and it wouldn't be entirely against the ideas he's expressed (in The Audacity of Hope for example), it would still be a bad move, and probably the first step on a slippery slope.

The Ugly:
He's as bad as Bush, and all this 'I respect human life and want an end to war' stuff was a long con.

"Gorramit Mal... I've forgotten my line."

HERO

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 9:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
No. The legal use of military power outside a formal Declaration of War has been well established..."since the 1940's".

Korea, Vietnam, Libya, Kuwait, etc.

Doesn't prove war can constitutionally be declared by an entity other than Congress, just that war has been declared. Though of course most of the above weren't 'wars' they were 'police actions'.

No, but it does establish the precedent that military power can be used absent a Declaration of War...just as the founders intended. (...to the shores of Tripoli; We will fight our country's battles...)

H

CITIZEN

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 10:08 PM

Uhuh, just keep telling yourself that, Hero.

From the halls of Montezuma,
To the shores of Tripoli,
The American Army Marches,
On Coke and LSD

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 10:28 PM

Cobb

I see g1 as possible, but time is fleeting.
g2 I would have trouble believing.
b1 seems most likely
b2 is typical dem, but that would mean that he was a puppet, because personally, he doesn't come across as partist

ugly. That's a scary thought.

note: If you see me post "millions" for Clinton, that's because I also blame him for Rwanda. I have good evidence to do so. What I really lack is a why.

It's like the crime that you can prove, and still have no motive. I suppose there's always the homocidal lunatic angle, but I suspect there's a reason. The best I've come up with is that it was the idea of some genocidal african leader who Clinton supported in order to create the african union. (a Mugabe or Mbeki, one of those people who thinks people of other races have no place on africa, I'm talking other african races here, like nubians and pygmies.)

Anyway, yes, it's very worrisome, and I've noticed the american MSM is keeping a lid on the story. I want to hear a statement from the president. If it happens again, it will be more worrisome.

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 12:50 AM

Gates seems to be saying that he bombed Pakistan, but that it was cleared, in his opinion, with Pakistan and Obama. Clearly Pakistan disagrees.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/27/gates-afghanistan-military-
challenge/

Also, there's a disturbing new initiative to move the JSOC style operations, training and arming locals to fight insurgencies, to be under the state dept. aka Hillary. Not only is it disturbing to consider the creation and arming of a non-US military militia in a theater of combat to be taken out of the military power structure, but to be handed to a Clinton with no experience whatsoever.

Anyone have the whole tues 1/27/09 Senate Armed Services Gates testimony link?

[edit] He says this is an Obama admin policy and attacks will continue against Pakistan, in spite of Pakistani govt. complaints.

CORNCOBB

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 1:07 AM

Originally posted by Dreamtrove: Clinton's veto of the Rwandan exception resolution was a blatantly evil act

That's damning enough for me. Go ahead, call it millions. I actually didn't know about that, gotta admit. F***ing appalling.
And to make things worse, most people seem to think Clinton was such a nice guy and that the worst thing he did was get a BJ in the oval office. Conveniantly forgetting the, ya know, atrocities.

"Gorramit Mal... I've forgotten my line."

VETERAN

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 3:49 AM

Quote:
Hero wrote:
Tuesday, January 27, 2009 11:31
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Hero:
No. The legal use of military power outside a formal Declaration of War has been well established..."since the 1940's".

Korea, Vietnam, Libya, Kuwait, etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doesn't prove war can constitutionally be declared by an entity other than Congress, just that war has been declared. Though of course most of the above weren't 'wars' they were 'police actions'.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, but it does establish the precedent that military power can be used absent a Declaration of War...just as the founders intended. (...to the shores of Tripoli; We will fight our country's battles...)

H

Wasn't this established back in the 1890's with Phillipines?

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 5:59 AM

Quote:
That's damning enough for me. Go ahead, call it millions. I actually didn't know about that, gotta admit. F***ing appalling.
And to make things worse, most people seem to think Clinton was such a nice guy and that the worst thing he did was get a BJ in the oval office. Conveniantly forgetting the, ya know, atrocities.

yes, the timeline was something like this:
Ugly story warning.

Select to view spoiler:

day 2: 2 rwandan tutsi flee to gabon, meet kofi annan, who was director of UN peacekeeping affairs, who drafts the resolution, which comes to a vote on day 15. About 20,000 tutsis are dead. France abstains for treaty obligations, clinton-albright veto it. Rumor surfaces that the incident that started it was the shooting down of a plane with Rwanda+Burundi Tutsi+Hutu leaders on their way to a peace summit (over uganda i think). The weapon is identified by local african officials as a US anti-aircraft gun. No one can enter the region without risking open war. Violence flares up, and then, with about 1 million tutsis of the original 10 million are dead. Main reason for the dust settling seems to be lack of ammunition. Clinton flies in with peacekeepers with lots of weapons. Violence spikes up again, and doesn't stop until deaths pass 8 million 7.7 million are tutsis, the rest are almost all other africans accused of "helping tutsis" very little counterfire against hutu militia. Violence flares up a few more times, as the central african war gets under way (something which just started again.) Overall, no one is entirely sure if there are tutsis left. There are an estimated 2 million, some small colonies of a few thousand living in refugee groups, some here in the US, other parts of the world, and in africa. Most remaining regionally tutsis are sex slaves captured by the hutu, and their half-hutu children.

But how we got to Monica was a massive meander. There were two children killed in arkansas in connection with a drug ring, cocaine. This led investigators to a couple people who were receiving contracts from the govt. of arkansas for projects never completed. Coincidentally, they had been campaign contributors to Clinton, and rewarded a la Bush. The ring is busted, and many of Clinton's people go to jail for cocaine trafficking, 100ish (their names are all on his last day pardon list, along with the charges.)

Vince Foster is Hillary's former boss, she hires him to oversee their finances. He does so, and finds a real estate related money-laundering circle, which is a red flag to him for drug money. He calls a federal prosecutor, his secretary, and then Hillary, essentially saying to all three, I think that some of the donors might have drug money, and the clintons will have to disown this right away. (waco has already happened at this point, and foster/clinton have had a falling out over it.) So, he goes to see Hillary, and shows up dead in the wood, after several investigations, it's ruled a suicide, but it doesn't stick. Hillary ends up with a murder charge and fraud charges. This ends in a mistrial, after two years of the president's meddling in the case.

The secretary is linda tripp. She has known foster for 30 years, and been his secretary for most of them. She can't get the clintons for murder or embezzlement, because the federal prosecutors say they need hard evidence. The only hard evidence she gets is on monica, and clinton lies under oath about it.

There's a book called "the strange death of vincent foster" which makes the case, without trying, it just presents the evidence. My brother who was an avid clinton supporter, and complete non-conspiracist, read the actual case file, and his conclusion, as a law professor, was Hillary was "More guilty than OJ." That was meant as a superlative.

Next, the now disgraced foot-tapping larry craig presented to congress proof that during the arms embargo on bosnia, Clinton used the US contingent of that embargo to run arms, to the mujahideen, more commonly called "al qaeda" for the purpose of attacking croatia, to secure a strip of land to the

NAVYFLYER

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 6:44 AM

Evening everyone,

This is my first time to the boards and I was just looking around but saw this post and felt the need to respond.

I'm a Navy officer flying an electronic attack jet called the EA-6B Prowler. I'm a member of only two land based Prowler squadrons in the Navy and we deploy every 6 months to Bagram, Afghanistan and spend the next 6 months on the ground in the combat zone. I have to say this...we NEED the extra troops over there. I hope and pray that 20,000 is only the start. In fact, Obama's polices to increase troops in Afghanistan and his willingness not to accept Pakistan's excuses was one of the main reasons I voted for him. Pakistan is not our ally. They actively pursue polices against the US and then claim that they deserve more money. They were some of the principle backers of the Taliban in manpower, money, and equipment. I have flown many missions very near the Pakistan boarder and I have to tell you its not a comfortable feeling. They have taken potshots at my friends across the border on more than one occasion.

As far as the attacks into Pakistan go, almost the entire northern region of the country is Pashtun tribal land that the Pakistani government doesn't control at all. The entire region is run by the Taliban and the Pakistanis do nothing about it because they fear a Taliban takeover of the rest of the country.

I've met many Afghans in Bagram and I assure you that they want peace, but not a peace imposed by the Taliban. Most of the men there are clean shaven. Why? Because the Taliban wouldn't let men shave their beards and as soon as they were gone the first thing everyone did was shave their beards as a symbol of their freedom.

Ultimately we still have a long road to go over there. But us, the Australians, Canadians, French, Germans, Polls, Koreans, Checs, and everyone else over there is fighting hard. I only spend 6 months in the US a year and 3 of those months are on the road for training. So I really only spend 3 months of the year at home. Please don't tell me that we shouldn't get help. Obama is making the right moves with Afghanistan and Pakistan. I sincerely hope that we keep striking targets in the Taliban controlled parts of Pakistan to stop them from building up forces to attack us across the border. I go back in 3 months.

Have any of you been to Afghanistan? Talked to the people there?

Oh and I can't wait to get the rest of my squadron addicted to Firefly too lol

--Jason

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 1:43 PM

Quote:
we NEED the extra troops over there.

I know people in that war, including one guy who was shot in the head twice. No brain damage, but he was on the front lines in both wars over the last five years, on the ground.

His attitude was you shoot at people, bomb them, they're gonna shoot back. He never once blamed the guys that shot him, and this guy got pretty messed up more than once physically.

The real question is "Why do WE need to be there at all.

Quote:
Pakistan is not our ally.

Alliance in not an opinion, it's a fact of international law, signed on a peace of paper. We recognize a territory call it Pakistan, and are sworn to defend it. Every bit as much as you are sworn to defend America.

Quote:
principle backers of the Taliban

Why wouldn't they? Don't we also support groups on the ground in Afghanistan?. Of course we do, we openly admit to doing so, the N. Alliance and Mujahideen groups. We support militants inside Iran against that govt. We supported some in Iraq. No conspiracy theory here, this is official.

Yeah, Pakistan is going to look after its regional interests. If you were Pakistan, you'd do the same thing.

Quote:
I have to tell you its not a comfortable feeling. They have taken potshots at my friends across the border on more than one occasion.

I'm sorry, my sympathy for this sort of thing has run out. They don't like it when you shoot at them, I figured that one out for myself.

Quote:
almost the entire northern region of the country is Pashtun tribal land that the Pakistani government doesn't control at all.

Everyone on this board already knows this, if not everyone on the planet. It's their job to get control, or not as they choose, but they choose, and it's our job to help them. They have made it extremely plain that our bombing runs are counter-productive to their mission to achieve peace with the tribal areas.

Lack of control in a given country doesn't give a foreign power a right to bomb that region. If S. Ossetia hadn't asked to become a Russian protectorate by a vote of over 70% of the population, and say, instead, they hated Russia, and Russia had just started bombing them, on the grounds that they border Russia, and are a remote tribal region that is occasionally a launching spot for terrorist to get into Russia, all of which is true, then Russia would have gotten even more sternly denounced by the world. As it was, the action was not welcomed with open arms by anyone except S. Ossetia.

I can guarantee you that our actions against Pakistan will not cause us to be welcomed with open arms in Waziristan.

Quote:
The entire region is run by the Taliban

Most of your post is at least accurate, but I'm one of the skeetshooters here, and I have to point out something like this. The region is run by no one. That's part of what makes it tribal. It contains three distinct ethnic groups speaking three different languages and has no coherent body to rule. This is an ideal place for militants to hide, because there is no authority to gnab them. But that doesn't mean that the locals should just be tossed aside as collateral damage.

Quote:
I've met many Afghans in Bagram

Should we talk about Bagram for a moment?

Quote:
But us, the Australians, Canadians, French, Germans, Polls, Koreans, Checs

Czech.

Quote:
Please don't tell me that we shouldn't get help.

Okay, some people say we shouldn't, but whether or not we should, I will give you this, unapologetically: We aren't helping. We're part of the problem.

Quote:
I sincerely hope that we keep striking targets in the Taliban controlled parts of Pakistan

Jeez.. Listen to yourself. Targets in Taliban controlled parts... that's vague. That's an open license to bomb anyone. Should the rest of us say that "Democrat controlled portions of the US are fair game, civilians included?"

Okay, you want to draw a line between Taliban and Democrats, I'm game. Who has killed more people?

Taliban are a political party

HERO

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 8:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Veteran:
Wasn't this established back in the 1890's with Phillipines?

Yes...not to mention Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates...in 1807 or Washington marching on Pittsburg in 1794.

H

HERO

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 8:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
That's an open license to bomb anyone. Should the rest of us say that "Democrat controlled portions of the US are fair game, civilians included?"

HEY! I've seen that before (flips through book), page 29 of the Al Queda Rules of Engagement, "...an open license to bomb anyone. Democrat controlled portions of the US are fair game, civilians included."

H

CORNCOBB

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 9:18 PM

Hero, surely you're not implying that makes it right for us to kill civillians from that region. Eye for an eye, is that what you're saying? The whole reason we're fighting the 'war on terro' is (allegedly) because these people kill civillians. We're supposed to be doing this to protect lives. But never mind that, 'they' killed innocent people 'over here', so let's kill innocent people 'over there'.
Civillians are civilians, they're not fair game just because the other side broke the rules.
P.S. all this is academic anyway. The U.S. and it's allies have been killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people for decades, that's what started this whole stupid mess. Technically our side broke the rules first.

"Gorramit Mal... I've forgotten my line."

CITIZEN

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 11:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Yes...not to mention Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates...in 1807 or Washington marching on Pittsburg in 1794.

No one ever said the US could follow it's own rules...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 11:28 PM

Quote:
COBB
Hero, surely you're not implying that makes it right for us to kill civillians from that region.

No, I think that Hero was drawing a moral equivalence between Al Qaeda and the United States.

Personally, I agree =)

CORNCOBB

Thursday, January 29, 2009 1:41 AM

Hero, if I did misinterpret your post I apologise

"Gorramit Mal... I've forgotten my line."

HERO

Thursday, January 29, 2009 1:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Corncobb:
Hero, surely you're not implying that makes it right for us to kill civillians from that region. Eye for an eye, is that what you're saying?

What I am saying is that there is no moral equivilancy between an act of terror, that deliberately targets civilians, and an act of war which unfortunately results in civilian deaths.

To take your 'eye for an eye' analogy. One person strikes for the eye with the purpose of putting the eye out. The other punches the first person accidently putting the eye out. There is a difference of intent...not result.

In WW2 the Nazis fired rockets at London to terrorize the people. The Allies bombed factories to stop the production of war material. Both killed civilians.

Your analysis puts the Allies and the Nazis in the same moral catagory. I reject that notion. In fact I argue that the Nazis are responsible for the death both the civilians in London AND the ones in their bombed factories.

Likewise Al Queda is responsible for the attack on 9/11 and EVERY death (civilian, military, and terrorist) in the war on terror since 9/11 INCLUDING Iraq.

H

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, January 29, 2009 4:49 PM

Hero

I am abstaining from arguments, in general, I just advise you to do a little research. You research a lot better now than when first showed up, but it still doesn't make sense to me. Wouldn't you're argument be more persuasive if you fact checked your statements before posting them?

Now, forgive me some nitpicking, but I just want to show some examples of what I mean:

Quote:
What I am saying is that there is no moral equivilancy between an act of terror, that deliberately targets civilians, and an act of war which unfortunately results in civilian deaths.

Okay, this may be true, but it doesn't support a pro-US position. While we have no evidence that Bush has targeted civilians intentionally, we know for a fact that the US has, many times, and admittedly so. Certain in WWII. Forget Dresden for a moment, we dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. This sort of thing has been policy since Andrew Jackson, and was still so under Clinton, there's no reason to think that it would stop. I'm not talking conspiracy theory, I'm talking open admission of targeting civilians. If you want to call that terrorism, I would agree, but that definitely makes the US a rogue state.

Quote:
To take your 'eye for an eye' analogy. One person strikes for the eye with the purpose of putting the eye out. The other punches the first person accidently putting the eye out. There is a difference of intent...not result.

Okay, just because I'm nitpicking, I don't see where this fits in.

Quote:
In WW2 the Nazis fired rockets at London to terrorize the people. The Allies bombed factories to stop the production of war material. Both killed civilians.

Your analysis puts the Allies and the Nazis in the same moral catagory. I reject that notion. In fact I argue that the Nazis are responsible for the death both the civilians in London AND the ones in their bombed factories.

This is what made me respond. This is patently absurd. The entire historical community is agreed that the allies killed more people, and more civilians, than the axis. It's not even a matter of debate. Certainly more than Germany alone. There are numerous websites devoted to this topic. Allies are responsible for about three times the casualties of the axis.

If you want to make the case that the Axis was morally wrong, that's a different and more complex issue. But what you stated is equivalent to saying that the South did more property damage to the North in the Civil War. That would be absurd. You can still argue a moral high ground for the North, and many do, but not on the basis that they were less destructive.

Quote:
Likewise Al Queda is responsible for the attack on 9/11 and EVERY death (civilian, military, and terrorist) in the war on terror since 9/11 INCLUDING Iraq.

And, since you mention it, who is Al Qaeda? Does this organization exist? Does it have any connection to 9.11, let alone Iraq?

The CIA and FBI don't seem to think so. I think that you'd have to come up with a strong argument to support this, first define Al Qaeda. If you mean the mujahideen militants in Afghanistan lead by Osama bin Laden, those guys work for us, they always did, and it's highly doubtful they had anything to do with 9.11, and it's absurd to blame the Iraq war on them. I have, as I said, in my possession, the actual documented war plan of the invasion of Iraq written by Dick Cheney, and published, back when Osama was working with the CIA. The Iraq war was planned and executed by Cheney, and that requires no theory: He published the thing.

"There is no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, I don't know why anyone would think that." - George W. Bush, a year or two ago something, I don't know the date.

So, you say something like that, and you're out on the limb of Hero, by himself, making an outlandish claim. Yes, sure, you can do that if you want, but don't expect it to be saluted if you don't run it up the flag pole. A claim like that has to have a ton of evidence behind it.

CORNCOBB

Thursday, January 29, 2009 6:03 PM

Quote:
To take your 'eye for an eye' analogy. One person strikes for the eye with the purpose of putting the eye out. The other punches the first person accidently putting the eye out. There is a difference of intent...not result.

Allow me to rip holes in your analogy: this isn't a one on one situation. A closer analogy would be: one person strikes a close friend of yours, intent on putting out their eye. So you punch a close friend of theirs, accidentally putting out the eye. This doesn't sound very just to me.

And this is even if I were to accept that the retaliatory 'eye removel' would be wholly accidental. If we make the analogy as exact as possible it would read 'you punch a friend of theirs. You know you're likely to take out their eye, and you don't really need to risk taking out their eye, but you do it anyway.'

I do not believe that you can reject responsibility for an act in that way. It wouldn't hold up in a court of law. If you do something knowing full well innocent people will be hurt then you are responsible for the injuries or deaths that result. It doesn't matter whether that was your desired goal or a means to an end or a side effect that you felt was acceptable.

Don't bother rebutting with how the person is meant to represent a nation while the eye is meant to represent civilians, its a faulty analogy - people's eyes have no autonomous conciousness and you can't regard a whole nation of people as a conglomerate entity.

As far as the WW2 analogy goes, ditto everything Dreamtrove said. Plus I don't see much comparison between the two situations. The Nazis were a threat to the existence of whole races, and the freedom of the world. They had a huge war effort, which, unfortunately, many innocent factory workers were a part of. The factories had to be destroyed and thats horrible and I'm not sure it's entirely justifiable, but it's still a very different situation. Middle eastern terrorists, to quote Bill Bailey, are 'a loose collection of random zealots who could be rounded up with a sustained police investigation'. The civilian casualties caused by attempts to round them up are not unavoidable - they're not directly in the way, they're not involved at all, they just happen to have the misfortune of being in the vicinity. Furthermore, the threat posed by terrorists, though they have commited horrendous acts, pales in comparison to the threat posed by the Nazis. Finally, its a slightly spurious assumption that in this analogy Al Qaeda would take the role of the Nazis and the War on Terror would play the part of the Allies. This betrays a nation-centric 'us-vs-them' way of thinking. As I mentioned earlier, technically, we started it. The conflict between the western world and the Middle East did not start with 9/11. If we were to follow your reasoning, that would give Al Qaeda the right to wipe out everyone in the US, and the US government would be to blame, which is clearly an insane and disgusting idea.

"Gorramit Mal... I've forgotten my line."

HERO

Friday, January 30, 2009 1:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Wouldn't you're argument be more persuasive if you fact checked your statements before posting them?

Perhaps. But from the rest of your post you fail to grasp any understanding of both my argument and the facts you claim to present.

Quote:

Certain in WWII. Forget Dresden for a moment, we dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan...

So your argument is "but we killed civilians in WW2". Lets not skip the greatest and most lasting non-Jewish humanitarian disasters of the war, the atom bombs. There was great debate over what targets to choose. Hiroshima was a major naval base, logistics center, transportation hub, and industrial center. That is why it was bombed. To deny the enemy the naval base, harbor, airfields, railroad yards, supplies, and factories.

That the enemy would place such things in such close proximity to its civilian population was tragic. All the more sad when you consider that every death was the responsibilty of the Japanese leadership.

Quote:

Quote:
To take your 'eye for an eye' analogy. One person strikes for the eye with the purpose of putting the eye out. The other punches the first person accidently putting the eye out. There is a difference of intent...not result.

Okay, just because I'm nitpicking, I don't see where this fits in.

You don't see a difference between two fighters when one sets out to blind his opponant and the other merely sets out to win the fight.
Quote:

Your analysis puts the Allies and the Nazis in the same moral catagory. I reject that notion. In fact I argue that the Nazis are responsible for the death both the civilians in London AND the ones in their bombed factories.

This is what made me respond. This is patently absurd. The entire historical community is agreed that the allies killed more people, and more civilians, than the axis. It's not even a matter of debate.

Must not be counting Jews or Commies...

But your point is that we killed more civilians. But our goal was never to kill civilians it was to eliminate the enemies ability to make war.

During the Civil War Sherman destroyed massive amounts of civilian property in Georgia. The point was not to lay waste to the South, it was to end the South's ability to continue the fight.

Quote:

And, since you mention it, who is Al Qaeda? Does this organization exist? Does it have any connection to 9.11, let alone Iraq?

The CIA and FBI don't seem to think so...

Perhaps. But then you don't think like a lawyer. We're trained to look beyond the moment for causation. Spilled milk in the aisle, slip and fall. But for the failure of the store to clean up the mess, the injury would not have happened. But for the milk jar's defective design the bottle would not have broke. Etc.

But for Al Queda's attack on 9/11 the war on terror would not have started, therefore the Iraq war would not have happened (absent some other factor).

While the causation line can go back further then 9/11 and branch out...the forseeability becomes a factor. The Iraq war was a forseeable...perhaps even a planned outcome of the attack. The is not true of Clinton...but for Clinton's failure to take custody of Bin Ladden in 1998 9/11 would not have happened because 9/11 was not forseeable.

Lets go back to Hiroshima. But for Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor the bombing of Hiroshima would not have happened. Yamamoto himself knew it was coming...maybe not the form but inevitable and total of defeat was a possibility he understood, warned about, and ultimately planned for.

H

DREAMTROVE

Friday, January 30, 2009 2:14 AM

Quote:

Perhaps. But from the rest of your post you fail to grasp any understanding of both my argument and the facts you claim to present.

I'm extremely well informed on the subject. I do know people, and one of my closest friends is the EU's eductation expert on WWII, as I said before.

But I don't need to ask him, because this is all very well known.

Quote:
Lets not skip the greatest and most lasting non-Jewish humanitarian disasters of the war, the atom bombs.

I just said I'm not even wanting to discuss anything with people who defend the attack on Hiroshima.

That said, you're way off. You left out the chinese nationalist campaigns against japan, which often targeted civilians, killing 900,000 civilians in one incident. But the biggest killer was Russia. The Ukranian and Polish victims of soviet aggression were the largest civilian casualties of WWII. Total axis caused deaths were about 25 million, total allied were closer to 90 million, civilians represented about 1/2 of all deaths, pretty much across the board. One of my pet peeves with holocaust discussion is that it was not only jews. This is our mainstream media. I'm not denying 6 million jews died, but I'm saying yes, and we focus on this to the exclusion of everything else? The nazis themselves killed as many non-jewish civilians, even in camps. Including many relatives of mine. I know this position gets no more sympathy than Wulf's reverse racism, but it's very real. But I would say that the Chinese, Ukrainians and Poles were the principal victims of the war in numbers, Poles getting it from both sides, followed by Jews, Gypsies, Serbs, and Japanese.

But our media has a lot of jewish people, not so many polish people. Some poles were also jews, and some jews were poles, but at this point, the nazis weren't making any real distinction, and the soviets made none at all, they, like the germans, killed people who were a power threat, people with influence, that's where my dad's family got crushed.

Quote:
All the more sad when you consider that every death was the responsibilty of the Japanese leadership.

This is so twisted an idea that it barely is worthy of a response except to say Tojo took his orders from Hitler, not from Hirohito. But talk about blaming the victim. Sure, there were a lot of Japanese atrocities.

Quote:
Must not be counting Jews or Commies...

I just counted them.

Quote:
But your point is that we killed more civilians. But our goal was never to kill civilians it was to eliminate the enemies ability to make war.

To be fair, neither was the Germans, their goal was to relocate them to Israel. I blame the corporations and the Nazis for the shift in policy.

Quote:
During the Civil War Sherman destroyed massive amounts of civilian property in Georgia. The point was not to lay waste to the South, it was to end the South's ability to continue the fight.

Some folk would take issue with that statement.

Quote:
Quote:

And, since you mention it, who is Al Qaeda? Does this organization exist? Does it have any connection to 9.11, let alone Iraq?

The CIA and FBI don't seem to think so...

Perhaps. But then you don't think like a lawyer.

Spare me, my brother is professor of law, an expert, I hear a lot about this.

Quote:
But for Al Queda's attack on 9/11 the war on terror would not have started, therefore the Iraq war would not have happened

1) this was obviously your point.
2) it was nonsense. I have cheney's original war plan right here. Besides that, we had been at war with Iraq for 12 years before we "invaded." More if you count Iran/Contra.

Oh, and 3) you're concept of Al Qaeda needs work.

Quote:
The is not true of Clinton

Clinton went to war with Iraq and killed 670,000 civilians, everyone knows this. Everyone except the democratic media.

Quote:
Lets go back to Hiroshima.

Oh, please, let's not.

Quote:
But for Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor the bombing of Hiroshima would not

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

NAVYFLYER

Friday, January 30, 2009 5:58 AM

Wow, people get really upset on these threads. I figured Firefly fans to be a bit more easy going lol.

Anyway, Dreamdrove thanks for the greating and I assure you I'm not a what did you call it? "Sockpuppet"? If I was I wouldn't have picked such an obscure aircraft as the EA-6B Prowler to say I flew. I would have picked an F/A-18 or F-15 or something like that.

At any rate, we obviously disagree on the Afghanistan war and we're not going to change each other's opinions. You know Afghans who want it stopped, I've had an Afghan come to me in tears thanking me and begging us not to stop before its done with.

However, I DO agree that we're overly dependent on bombing. Airpower is an amazing thing and its definitely necessary in combat, but we need to have more stringent standards for when we use it and when we don't. You're right in that case. We'll never win the hearts and minds if we keep causing so much collateral damage.

Oh, and my plane doesn't drop bombs. We carry the HARM missile which is used to shoot at surface to air missile/radar sites. Its a tactical jamming aircraft that we use to suppress enemy air defenses.

We are doing some good over there. Every Friday we have a bazaar and the local Afghans come on base and set up a little tent city and try to sell various crafts, mostly made in Kabul. They make pretty good money. I remember this one kid in a Bears jersey, gold chains, and a sideways Chicago White Socks hat trying to sell me Soviet uniforms and old British pistols. Another one was giving these Air Force girls a ride on a camel. Its a hell of a place.

DREAMTROVE

Friday, January 30, 2009 2:22 PM

NAVYFLYER:

Quote:

Wow, people get really upset on these threads. I figured Firefly fans to be a bit more easy going lol.

A couple times they get upset, but usually they're just f^&king with you. We might have a battle to the death here, and then go have a beer.

Quote:
"Sockpuppet"? If I was I wouldn't have picked such an obscure aircraft as the EA-6B Prowler to say I flew. I would have picked an F/A-18 or F-15 or something like that.

Ah, you're making an assumption: That no one else on the board is a naval airman. That assumption would be incorrect. But even uneducated tomato farmers know the scope of the US military. People are more aware than you may suspect.

BTW, Get used to being a suspected sockpuppet, it's not going away for a long time. It didn't for me either.

Quote:
At any rate, we obviously disagree on the Afghanistan war and we're not going to change each other's opinions. You know Afghans who want it stopped, I've had an Afghan come to me in tears thanking me and begging us not to stop before its done with.

Unfortunately for me, you're the one with the weapons.

Quote:
However, I DO agree that we're overly dependent on bombing. Airpower is an amazing thing and its definitely necessary in combat, but we need to have more stringent standards for when we use it and when we don't. You're right in that case. We'll never win the hearts and minds if we keep causing so much collateral damage.

So called. I think it's worse than just a bad choice as a weapon of war, it's a recruitment poster for the enemy. The problem is that our govt. is afraid of US casualties, because they make headlines. If you go to war, that's the risk.

The case against aerial bombardment was made long before it began, in Jules Verne's Master of the World, 1904.

Quote:
Oh, and my plane doesn't drop bombs. We carry the HARM missile which is used to shoot at surface to air missile/radar sites. Its a tactical jamming aircraft that we use to suppress enemy air defenses.

Interesting. I'll look it up, see what happens if you hit a house with it

I'm impressed that they have air defenses.

Quote:
We are doing some good over there. Every Friday we have a bazaar and the local Afghans come on base and set up a little tent city and try to sell various crafts, mostly made in Kabul. They make pretty good money. I remember this one kid in a Bears jersey, gold chains, and a sideways Chicago White Socks hat trying to sell me Soviet uniforms and old British pistols. Another one was giving these Air Force girls a ride on a camel. Its a hell of a place.

Just try not to make it a *hell* of a place

One problem with places like Bagram is that our side doesn't report them at all, and so all we here is from the other side.

My own view on the matter is complex, and I have a lot of issues I'd like to discuss on it. But at the moment I'm very sick, so I have to get over this flu. But stick around a while, and we'll have a nice civil discussion about the pros and cons, and the possible courses of actions, after which I'll go back to growing tomatoes, and you'll be ordered by people to do whatever their bosses think is right, and neither of us will have any power to change it

HERO

Friday, January 30, 2009 6:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
The bombing happened because we had the bomb. Forget the part where the bombing of pearl harbor was a reaction to the sinking of a japanese sub. The local japanese commander panicked, and thought "we have to sink the US Navy before it deploys" which they thought was imminent. They were also right. Fascinating story, the guy who shot the sub figured out what the japanese response would be, and radioed based, and told them to evacuate. Base couldn't do so without an order, or so he was told. They got ahold of the Dep. Sec. of defense, who had trouble finding the sec. of defense, who took his mornings in the park. They then went to the president, who called pearl harbor to tell them to evacuate. Pearl harbor had been destroyed 2 minutes earlier, and didn't respond.

Back on a japanese aircraft carrier, a captain got a distress call from the sub. He was about 100-150 miles away. They went into the cabin and discussed it for 15 minutes. They realized that this might be the result of an unintentional collision, meaning that the fleet was to be deployed at dawn. They decided to make a pre-emptive strike, and take out the navy. It took another 15 minutes for the japanese bombers to reach their target, two minutes before the incoming call from washington.

Wow...didn't realize you were a crazy-talker. A local Japanese commander?

"Well, we just happened to be sailing within short range striking distance of Pearl Harbor with the bulk of our carrier fleet and strike aircraft armed with specially modified shallow-water torpedoes thousands of miles away from our bases and after having spent months training for a shallow water attack in a harbor resembling Pearl Harbor when low and behold a short range mini-sub was sunk trying to peacefully enter an American harbor, submerged and unannounced, and we responded accordingly (not to mention the whole "Declaration of War" top hat and tails bit)."

I like the 'Tora Tora Tora' much better. Hell, Ben Affleck's version has more basis in fact then yours does.

Edited to add: To you know how much oil it took to sail the Jap fleet to Hawaii? Do you realize the amount of logisitcal planning the operation required? Local commander my ass...

H

DREAMTROVE

Friday, January 30, 2009 8:59 PM

It wasn't an out of the blue move, the japanese were doing the same thing we were doing: colonizing the pacific. Hawaii wasn't even a state. It was an occupied foreign kingdom at the time. Meanwhile, we'd been been at war with Japan for 4 years. Of course they had deployed the Navy to block us. They would be moron if they didn't.

Your underlying assumption is that the japanese sphere of influence ended somewhere in Sai Pan. Reality was it ended at our doorstep, in the middle of the pacific.

I'm sorry, bored now. This thread was about Pakistan, not Hiroshima. I think I said that I have no sympathy for the defenders of the Hiroshima attack. None, zip, nada. Zero. They are on a complete par with holocaust deniers, IMHO. It's really 6 of one, have a dozen of the other. Signing off, flame away.