A whole new war, a dazzling hate I never knew by dreamtrove

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

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

Sunday, January 25, 2009 8:46 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Rahmbo.

Expect fallout.

Don't expect it to be public.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 25, 2009 9:05 AM

WHOZIT

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

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

Sunday, January 25, 2009 9:05 AM

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?

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

Sunday, January 25, 2009 9:07 AM

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.

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

Sunday, January 25, 2009 9:20 AM

WHOZIT

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

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

Sunday, January 25, 2009 10:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Rahmbo.

Can we leave the movies outta this?

The RL Chrisisall

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

Sunday, January 25, 2009 10:46 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

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...

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

Sunday, January 25, 2009 11:30 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

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."

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

Sunday, January 25, 2009 12:46 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.

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

Sunday, January 25, 2009 12:54 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

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

Sunday, January 25, 2009 12:58 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.

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

Sunday, January 25, 2009 1:02 PM

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

The

Chrisisall

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

Sunday, January 25, 2009 1:03 PM

OUT2THEBLACK

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...

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

Sunday, January 25, 2009 1:54 PM

Quote:
red vines

"Man, I hate playing vampire towns"

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

Sunday, January 25, 2009 2:06 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

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?

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

Sunday, January 25, 2009 2:37 PM

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.

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

Sunday, January 25, 2009 3:16 PM

HKCAVALIER

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.

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

Sunday, January 25, 2009 3:52 PM

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

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

Sunday, January 25, 2009 3:56 PM

PIRATECAT

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".

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

Monday, January 26, 2009 4:08 AM

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 weapons, and are capable of hitting the united states. And we're worried that there might be people hiding in the hills of Pakistan or Afghanistan that hate America? Give me a break.

The plan to invade Afghanistan drawn up by Perle and Wolfowitz, and their staff, including Wolfowitz staffer, now chief advisor to the "president" of Pakistan Zalmay Khalilzad, was already on the president's (G W Bush) desk before the attacks of Sept. 11th. Fact, regardless of who you think did the 9/11 attacks.

What is this all about? I can't be sure, but it's certainly about regional conquest, and to some extent, Islam, in one way or another. I'm not going to grace the term "radical Islam." Religions are radical. Whether religious groups or nations attack other groups or nations is because they are motivated to by real world events, not by the promise of 72 virgins. This kind of propaganda makes me sick. Always assume that all humans are as intelligent as you.

So, Predator Drones attacking Pakistan isn't new, except that Obama is doing it. This is a neocon Bush plan. Why is Obama being G. W. Bush? Is it him or a soon to be fired cabinet member? Lets hope the latter. I think there are a whole lot of "knowns" here. Not a lot of unknowns. But those are the two.

Quote:
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.

Okay, I'll spell it out:

1. Pakistan is a nation with roughly 8 times the population of Iraq, and it's full of muslims.
2. This is how wars start. The number of deaths isn't as important as the state of war. You're not going to find a lot of people defending the Iraq war by saying "Clinton killed 10 times as many people," which sure, is probably true, but that's an attack on Clinton, not a defense of Bush, or his Iraq policy.
3. Neocons are neocons, and when they get into it, they clearly have no idea where to stop. If this isn't painfully obvious, look at the passed 30 years of US conflicts, with an increasing influence of the same neocon cabal.

Quote:
I'm not happy to hear this, but dayum, ain't we jumpin' the gun here just a little?

No, I think the gun just went off. Why are we off and running when the gun was fired? Because we don't want another 4/8 years of the same sh*t we got under Bush and Clinton. God, sure, I blame myself for thinking "Oh, we go in, topple a statue, put in a govt, mission accomplished. Okay, I knew it wasn't accomplished when the banner went up, but I thought that when Saddam was out of power and there was a democratically elected govt. that we had won the war. But neocons don't know when to stop.

My guess as to why? War is a money machine. As long as there's a war, there is war spending, and that means big bucks for defense contractors, sure, but it means much bigger bucks for the banks. If you look through the last 400 years of massive wars, you'll find banks loaning money to support the war endlessly, to create a govt. that pays interest on the debt, endlessly. The US govt. still has no paid down any of the now 2 trillion that it borrowed for WWII. Not a penny. We have paid interest on that debt ever year for almost 3/4 of a century.

Quote:
First y'all were trashing Obama before he was even elected and now you're making out like this shows we just elected Jeb.

For one, I wasn't trashing Obama, I expressed some concerns over his friends, which I still am. I'm perfectly willing to accept that this is some Clintonistas doing at the moment. I like Obama, I really do, and I really don't want it to be him. I hope that national security meeting he called directly after the attacks was to say "who ordered this and why?"

But I also have to be skeptical. A lot of Clintonista appointments, continuation of Bush policies, this has to be looked at with a healthy dose of suspicion. It was almost a love in between the Bush admin and Obama, I think that maybe we did just elect JEB. I hope not, but I'm a cynic as you know, and I'm always looking at worst case scenarios, and here's why: If I'm wrong, then everything's ducky. If I'm right then someone needs to do something. Now, a pollyanna optimist, if they're right, then there's nothing to worry about, and if they're wrong, we're all totally screwed and it's way too late. Catch my drift? The time to panic is, yes, right now.

Quote:
Save some of this for when (and IF) he REALLY sells us out, okay? Leave some room for your rhetoric to escalate, hm?

Oh, there's plenty of room for my rhetoric to escalate. I'm being nice to Obama right now.

Quote:
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.

Don't group us. I'm not a part of the "I hope he fails crowd." Even in Pakistan, I don't want the US to lose a war and Americans to die. But I wanted America to be a place that other people look up to, and I want us to stop killing people.

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

Taliban are Sunni also (double checking.) Yes, the Taliban are Sunni. The Pashtun are a mix, not even all muslims. But yes, there are a lot of Sunnis there. But hell, these are remote tribes. Communists and Christian crusaders could hide out there.

PirateCat

I'm not even sure that merits a response, sorry. If it does, it's this one: What, do you live in Pakistan? I mean, this is nonsense. The Sunnis and Shiia hate each other far more intensely than Pakistan and the west, and they're starting to get along now in Iraq. The place I see really blowing up here is the UK.

Chris,

I like HK too, but I gotta say, when are you going to notice the psycho in the house? When they shoot your dog and say "oh, it was an old dog." When they kill your wife and you say "oh I can get remarried." Or when they kill your kids and say "Ah, I'll have more later."

Ya gotta see that danger coming, better to see it coming before it starts killing people, which is why I was skeptical on the campaign trail, which is why I didn't vote for the guy. I know that when I say that Sarah Palin was the voice of reason that its pathetic, but I think it's the pathetic truth. On all accounts, the Obama administration just used killer robots to bomb three buildings in two towns, and two of those just killed random families. That's a double manson. Okay, so bush is 100,000 mansons, and should be tried accordingly, and maybe clinton is a million. But I like my leaders to be at the zero manson level. I'm holding out for an announcement that this was some shmuck overstepping his authority. That's the remaining shard of hope.

Just saying is all.

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

Monday, January 26, 2009 4:45 AM

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.

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

Monday, January 26, 2009 4:51 AM

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

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

Monday, January 26, 2009 4:54 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

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.

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

Monday, January 26, 2009 5:40 AM

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

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

Monday, January 26, 2009 5:43 AM

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

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

Monday, January 26, 2009 5:43 AM

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

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

Monday, January 26, 2009 5:46 AM

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

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

Monday, January 26, 2009 5:56 AM

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

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

Monday, January 26, 2009 6:01 AM

BYTEMITE

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 | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 26, 2009 6:12 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

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 | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 26, 2009 6:35 AM

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 colbert (sorry guys, but he is about to earn this one) reflect on it as "Eight years of peace." Five wars and millions dead aside, Colbert, there were several attacks on US soil during that peace, including one on the WTC.

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

Oh, it's lol anyway.

Quote:

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.

Ouch. I kinda agree with this.
Oh no, what's happening? Hero is making sense!
Sorry man

Quote:
BYTEMITE
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.

Oh, every discussion needs a voice of reason.
Doesn't it just make you reminisce about the old days when we were always at each other's throats?

Oh, I mean, well said.

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

Monday, January 26, 2009 7:20 AM

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 | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 26, 2009 7:27 AM

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

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

Monday, January 26, 2009 7:33 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

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 | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 26, 2009 7:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

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

True...

The equal Chrisisall

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

Monday, January 26, 2009 7:38 AM

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 | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 26, 2009 9:13 AM

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 | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 26, 2009 9:16 AM

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 | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 26, 2009 9:17 AM

And you're a Hobbsist, eh Hero?

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Monday, January 26, 2009 9:24 AM

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

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

Monday, January 26, 2009 9:30 AM

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.

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

Monday, January 26, 2009 10:55 AM

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.

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

Monday, January 26, 2009 11:59 AM

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.

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

Monday, January 26, 2009 12:48 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.

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

Monday, January 26, 2009 1:21 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.

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

Monday, January 26, 2009 1:23 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.

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

Monday, January 26, 2009 1:30 PM