Obama: Fight terror in Pakistan

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by OutThere, Aug 1, 2007.

  1. OutThere macrumors 603

    OutThere

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Location:
    NYC
    #1
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/02/us/politics/02obama.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

    What the hell is this. We need to get out of there, not spread even thinner chasing ghosts in Pakistan. I couldn't vote for someone who advocated sending U.S. troops to one more country in the middle east. Get our troops back home, patch up the wounds we've made so far. What good is going to come from wandering (and that's what it'd be, seeing how good our 'intelligence' has been) off into Pakistan? None.

    I just lost a ton of faith in Obama...oh how I wish Kucinich was running a real campaign.
     
  2. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #2
    Wow. I disagree, sending relatively small groups of troops into Pakistan to grab the leaders of Al Qaeda is the reason we invaded Afghanistan in the first place. I say we take the troops out of Iraq and move some of them back to Kabul where maybe we actually can do some good.
     
  3. OutThere thread starter macrumors 603

    OutThere

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Location:
    NYC
    #3
    And look how well that worked out. :rolleyes: We've created the world's biggest exporter of heroin.
     
  4. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #4
    I'm right there with you. If we can send limited amounts of troops into those places to help the local government, rather than take over, I'm all for it. I certainly don't think Obama is talking about invasions here.

    Because rather than help the folks in Afghanistan, we invaded Iraq. We basically abandoned Afghanistan.
     
  5. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #5
    Well, if that's a consequence for removing the Taliban from power then I'm all for it, I wish the same equation was the consequence of removing Saddam Hussien as well instead of the internecine violence we're currently experiencing.
     
  6. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #6
    i'd rather see our troops going after terrorist cells rather than creating the mess that is in iraq
     
  7. OutThere thread starter macrumors 603

    OutThere

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Location:
    NYC
    #7
    Ah but we didn't even do that right. There has been a marked resurgence of the Taliban in the past year, with new problems that didn't happen the first time around with the Taliban (suicide car bombers and such). The citizenry has been rioting as well, because there's been an effort to destroy the poppy crops that support the peasants. Basically, the Taliban will be back before long, and we will have accomplished nothing by going into Afghanistan.

    We wouldn't be doing it to help the local government—it's under the condition that the government doesn't do anything on its own. Once again we'd go in, unwelcome, and f*** over some innocent people to search for people who may or may not even be there. What reason do I have to believe that there really are al qaeda / O.B.L cells in the area of Pakistan that we'd be invading? It's not like the administration lied through its teeth about the WMDs or anything.

    I'm so done with funding the government's worthless BS in the middle east. Nothing truly, tangibly good has come from what we've done.
     
  8. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #8
    OK. Got you. But Obama has to say something to get elected. I don't think he'd actually do what you're claiming. And trust me, there's Al Qaeda all over Pakistan. Tons of the "liberals" (read realists) in these forums have been saying that for years. It's not that military force isn't needed to combat terrorism, it just needs to be applied correctly. That's our main criticism of this administration.
     
  9. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #9
    See, I'm torn about this. One of my main criticisms of this war was that we took our eyes off of the fight with the real terrorists. Pakistan isn't doing much, but we shouldn't be out sourcing again. But I don't want another mess on our hands that we can't handle. This administration has screwed things up so badly, it's sad we have to second guess ourselves as much as we do, but it's the reality now.

    The cynical part of me thinks he's just trying to quell some of the unrest over what we still see, probably justifiably, as the terrorist threat from that region. The talk is tough, appeases those who think he's soft on the issue and wonder if he has enough experience. Not sure if it's better if it's just talk, or if it's better he acted on it though. Tough call.
     
  10. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #10
    I still like Obama. Besides, everyone knows cadidates say things they don't mean before they're elected. Like Bush said we wasn't going to get into nation building before he got into office.

    It probably doesn't matter anyway. Hillary will probably get the nomination unless a miracle happens and Obamam gets it.
     
  11. FFTT macrumors 68030

    FFTT

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    #11
    If we had concentrated on OBL all this time, we would have gained international support to continue into Pakistan if that meant he would be captured.

    Kinda hard to justify a war in Iraq when the original bad guys are mostly
    Saudis hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    I still think the real motive was to declare a perpetual state of war
    to take advantage of the resulting profits.

    We were sold the concept of stability in the Middle East
    when in reality the results are chaos in the entire region.

    Recent arms trade agreements back up my theory.

    It's all about power oil and all the money they can siphon off
    with as little oversight as possible.

    When you consider the actual cost and projected costs, we have a trillion dollar scam in the works.
     
  12. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #12
    And when the neoprogressives see her using the military just as her husband and also the current president does, they are going to have one huge WTF moment.
     
  13. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #13
    "Neoprogressives" Haha! You're so desperate it's laughable.:) By the way- we all know she's more of the same. Haven't you been paying attention?
     
  14. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #14
    Oh, I know she's the same. I just can't help pointing it out for the benefit of those that think that getting rid of Bush is going to solve all the world's problems. Another 4 or 8 years of partisen vitriol ahead I'm afraid.
     
  15. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #15
    Seems to me you've been enjoying it.
     
  16. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #16
    Well, it is good to live in interesting times. The country is polarized right down the middle and I just recognize that under conditions like this, things usually get worse before they get better.
     
  17. dswoodley macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    #17
    I can admire Obama for wanting to take the fight to Al Qaida, but the timing is terrible. Pervez is on a very precarious throne. Troops in Pakistan would only create intolerable levels of hatred against America. I'd predict the current regime wouldn't last 3 months.
     
  18. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #18

    You're so funny!
     
  19. dswoodley macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    #19
    I'm still confused. What's a neoprogressive? i don't care of he made the term up. I just want to know what it is.
     
  20. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #20
    He doesn't know. He just made it up to be his usual abrasive self.

    But you know what? I bet he's busy making up a definition right now! ;)
     
  21. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #21
    its a made up word as far as i know.
    so it means nothing?
     
  22. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #22
    Awesome. the NeoProgs. I love that one.
     
  23. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #23
    Nah, I can't take credit for the term. I was watching either the Beltway Boys or that show with Neil Gabler and that mixed forum of news figures and one of them coined it when the neo con term was used by someone else as if it had any meaning either. I figure if we all use it often enough it will stick like the made up neocon label did. Especially since liberals like to use the term progressive now.
     
  24. dswoodley macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    #24
    That's fine. But what does it mean?
     
  25. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #25
    Looks like the term means a lot, and has a history too. Read up, swarmy.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocon
     

Share This Page