Obama says he would attack Pakistan.

[cujojunior]

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/03/obama.pakistan.ap/index.html?eref=edition_world

Why has Obama threatened to attack Pakistan? Would he actually invade, or just bomb/cruise missile them? When he says he wants to "redeploy" the troops, what exactly does that mean?

I came across an article written by Barrack Obama in Foreign Affairs Magazine, a publication of the Council on Foreign Relations.
The CFR is a non-governmental organization that serves as a meeting place for weapons, oil, drug, and media corporations.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html


Dick Cheney was a director of the CFR for some time, and other members include people like Henry Kissenger, Paul Wolfowitz, and David Rockefeller. Just imagine every ridiculously evil person in the world sitting in a room deciding how to use their 150 multinational corporations to dominate the planet.

Long story short, the Democrats are not going to end the war because they are bought and paid for by the same multinational corporations.

VOTE RON PAUL!!

[Scorpion]

Obama is an intelligent man with some progressive ideas that I like but, overall, he's a bigger liberal idiot than Hillary.

Bomb Pakistan? Geez, how stupid can you get.

[Voluntary]

Where did this ideology come from that we have to attack? We defeated Russia during the Cold War by example and now we are worried about third world countries.

[Pookie]

Uh-oh, this is lovely. Obama does that, and there goes the whole Dell customer service division.
Unbelievable. Aren't we bombing enough countries already? Who's next? North Korea? Iran? McCain wanted to bomb Iran -- when is this going to stop?
When we all run out of bombs or when we all run out of targets?
Geez.
Obama, that's not a good idea!
Hisses to Obama,

[micfranklin]

Even I have to admit that doesn't look good, and I'm an Obama fan.

[Truth_and_Power]

Funny how he never said he wants to attack pakistan. You would prefer a candidate who says military force is 'off the table' when it comes to attacking OBL in his residence in the mountains between pakistan and afghanistan?

[Scorpion]

Funny how he never said he wants to attack pakistan. You would prefer a candidate who says military force is 'off the table' when it comes to attacking OBL in his residence in the mountains between pakistan and afghanistan?


I'd prefer Obama not go rattling sabres over a country that needs a return to stability, not implied threats.

[Tsky]

Funny how he never said he wants to attack pakistan. You would prefer a candidate who says military force is 'off the table' when it comes to attacking OBL in his residence in the mountains between pakistan and afghanistan?


I'd prefer Obama not go rattling sabres over a country that needs a return to stability, not implied threats.


I think Bush supporters should be disqualified from even speaking on bombing unstable countries...considering both Afghanistan and Iraq were models of stability...

[Scorpion]

Funny how he never said he wants to attack pakistan. You would prefer a candidate who says military force is 'off the table' when it comes to attacking OBL in his residence in the mountains between pakistan and afghanistan?


I'd prefer Obama not go rattling sabres over a country that needs a return to stability, not implied threats.


I think Bush supporters should be disqualified from even speaking on bombing unstable countries...considering both Afghanistan and Iraq were models of stability...


A. I'm not a Bush supporter.

B. Disqualified from even speaking? Do you mean to restrict freedom
of speech because someones opinion differs from yours?

C. Iraq and Afghanistan were textbook examples of instability and
ruthless governance well before they were attacked.

[cujojunior]

"Funny how he never said he wants to attack pakistan."

I have multiple news articles that say he would order "unilateral military action" against Pakistan.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/08/obama_attacks_pakistan_pakista.html?nav=rss_blog

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/63137921-21CF-4890-9953-10637E765482.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-08-03-pakistan-obama_N.htm?csp=34

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080101233.html

Any Questions?[hr]I am not a Neocon worshiper. I know that both the Bush family and the Clinton family are owned by multinational corporations. The only candidate who is truly anti-war is Ron Paul. He didn't vote for the war, he doesn't want to start any wars, he wants to end the current wars.

[Scorpion]

"Funny how he never said he wants to attack pakistan."

I have multiple news articles that say he would order "unilateral military action" against Pakistan.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/08/obama_attacks_pakistan_pakista.html?nav=rss_blog

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/63137921-21CF-4890-9953-10637E765482.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-08-03-pakistan-obama_N.htm?csp=34

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080101233.html

Any Questions?[hr]I am not a Neocon worshiper. I know that both the Bush family and the Clinton family are owned by multinational corporations. The only candidate who is truly anti-war is Ron Paul. He didn't vote for the war, he doesn't want to start any wars, he wants to end the current wars.


How is invading a sovereign nation by military force and attacking targets within that nation without that nations permission any different then attacking the nation? Pure semantics. Try calling it an expedition or an incursion but it is still an attack.

And what if Pakistan, a nuclear power, decides not to sit idly by and let all this happen?

[cujojunior]

Thats my point...

[Scorpion]

Thats my point...


Sorry, I misunderstood the meaning of your post relative to the articles.

[Truth_and_Power]

1. I agree with you about Obama/Hillary/Romney/Guiliani/etc being more of the same from a broad perspective of interventionist foreign policy.

2. Sorry but in this new world of terrorism and non-state entities, attacking AlQaeda in the mountainous regions of pakistan which the central government does not even attempt to control is not the same as attacking pakistan. And yes, it is possible that pakistan could strike our forces as a result of this action.

3. Ron Paul and Kucinich are the only two candidates I'm aware of that are not pro-war.

[Scorpion]

2. Sorry but in this new world of terrorism and non-state entities, attacking AlQaeda in the mountainous regions of pakistan which the central government does not even attempt to control is not the same as attacking pakistan. And yes, it is possible that pakistan could strike our forces as a result of this action.



Regardless of the effectiveness of Pakistani security forces in the NW Territories it is still Pakistan's sovereign territory. Do you advocate a repeat of the Bush debacle in Iraq by invading a nation at peace with us, without their consent under the guise of anti-terrorism? Given the instability at present, and continuing in Pakistan's foreseeable future, a retaliatory strike by Pakistan is almost a given. In that case what may have started out as a limited scope mission would rapidly expand to a large theatre war with a nuclear power.

As an alternative, the formation of a coalition of Pakistani and US forces would seem the appropriate way to address terrorists hiding in northern Pakistan. It, of course, would be dependant on Pakistani cooperation which, with the current political climate, is essentially a moot point.

[Truth_and_Power]

Actually my post has nothing to do with my opinions of what we should do. I'm more interested in a ron paul type candidate than any other. But pakistan cannot both disavow any culpability in attacks that originate from their country and consider an attack on those forces an attack on themselves, after being given adequate time to handle the problem. It just doesn't make sense logically.

I fully realize that pakistan would possibly be forced to couterattack just to maintain the image of sovergnity, and of course I think that other options should be pursued first. But to deny that non-state attacks on non-state entities are the end result of this policy if it fails that far is letting optimism cloud your view.

3 Options

1. The afghanistan option - you're going down, so is the NSE (non-state entity)
2. The pakistan option - you take down NSE yourselves, possibly with some assistance/arms
3. The iraqi republic option - you play "host" to our forces, we take down NSE for you

Admittedly calling #3 the iraqi republic option is perhaps a bad choice because we're actually occupying them to rid them of the problem. But then again maybe it can only be that way.

[Scorpion]

Actually my post has nothing to do with my opinions of what we should do. I'm more interested in a ron paul type candidate than any other. But pakistan cannot both disavow any culpability in attacks that originate from their country and consider an attack on those forces an attack on themselves, after being given adequate time to handle the problem. It just doesn't make sense logically.

I fully realize that pakistan would possibly be forced to couterattack just to maintain the image of sovergnity, and of course I think that other options should be pursued first. But to deny that non-state attacks on non-state entities are the end result of this policy if it fails that far is letting optimism cloud your view.

3 Options

1. The afghanistan option - you're going down, so is the NSE (non-state entity)
2. The pakistan option - you take down NSE yourselves, possibly with some assistance/arms
3. The iraqi republic option - you play "host" to our forces, we take down NSE for you

Admittedly calling #3 the iraqi republic option is perhaps a bad choice because we're actually occupying them to rid them of the problem. But then again maybe it can only be that way.


I agree that Pakistan has a direct responsibility to address criminals on their soil and that they are not doing an effective job prosecuting that responsibility.

My suggestion would be a joint Pakistani - NATO incursion into the tribal areas to search out and destroy the terrorists. In any case, Pakistan must be a partner militarily.

Quite a bit will depend on the political climate and the outlook for civil war in Pakistan. Quite a volatile country.

[cujojunior]

Yeah...We should have never created the Taliban.[hr]"Sleep safe America, the 1st Cavalry, the US Military and conservatives are watching out for you."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109026,00.html

Yes, by invading third world countries and declaring total amnesty for all illegals. They were even so kind as to completely implode our economy! They are also training the military for weapons confiscation and martial law (to keep you extra safe/free). In fact our friends at Homeland Security (Reich Security) are now using flying unmanned surveillance drones against all the terrorists (U.S. Citizens) in Houston and Miami!

[Truth_and_Power]

by the way I would like to thank you for posting the link to the obama article. Do other candidates have published articles in this rag?

[cujojunior]

As far as I have researched, all of the mainstream candidates are involved with CFR in one way or another. The only candidate that isn't bought and paid for is Ron Paul.

[Truth_and_Power]

As far as I have researched, all of the mainstream candidates are involved with CFR in one way or another. The only candidate that isn't bought and paid for is Ron Paul.



Well if you find any other articles by candidates, or heavily quoting candidates, in that mag please post the link. I try to take them at their words and actions, not hearsay and association.

Thanks

[cujojunior]

Why don't you take 3 seconds and do the research for yourself. People are so used to being spoon fed nonsense by the corporate media that they have no clue how to conduct their own research. You don't learn things by watching the news. You learn by reading U.N. and C.F.R documents. You learn by researching the world bank and the federal reserve and the IMF. You study how the geopolictical system actually works in REALITY, not fairy tale mainstream news world. You learn who supplies the weaponry and the financing and who really controls the police and military. Then, after you research the news corporations and who they are affiliated with, you can sort through their propaganda.