A whole new war, a dazzling hate I never knew
POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Friday, January 30, 2009 20:59
VIEWED: 6353
PAGE 4 of 10
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Don't seem...ah...to remember any.
Originally posted by citizen:
Though I do wonder how much outrage there was, when Bush was doing it...
The searching Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:True...
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Wrong is wrong, no matter who is doing it, or for what reason.
The equal Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME