lol. Bush is now threatening to invade Pakistan

[Narmer]

:laugh:Our demented President is threatening to invade yet another muslim nation, this time it's our closest "ally" in the war on terror. I know that Bush is a military genius, so I'd love to see him succeed where the Pakistini government, Alexander the Great, the British Empire, and all other wanna-bees failed: the rugged mountains of the Hindu Kush.:laugh:

All these threats and bravado over the past 7 years and it's brought nothing but pain and suffering to civilians, our pocketbooks, and American soldiers duped into fighting "for freedom" in far away lands. Somebody better get this guy out of office before America miscalculates and experience its own Hiroshima.

I don't think America is ready for a real war on its soil. You can't catch a tiger by its tail and expect not to be bitten.


http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3391718

 

[Nebor]

Needs to be done. Tha Pakistanis have given up on the region. We have to pick up the slack.

 

[trenchfoot]

why should we ever go after them stink'in terrists in the remote mountains of pakistan when we can't even handle the ones who are right there in iraq not even hundreds of yards away from our "surging" troops.

why should bush risk finishing off a job he should have stuck with from the get-go when cheney decided that there were supposedly a whole lot more mushroom cloud producing oil-rich terrists in iraq to go after than all the ones without oil that have now re-org'ed and re-fitted and replenished and re-recruited in the badlands of afghanistan/pakistan due to cheney's decision to go after the oil in iraq rather than the perp's of 9-11?

how does it make any sense for bush to finish a job that won't directly profit his oil buddies other than to take eyes off of that fiasco he and cheney created in iraq?

 

[Kadarin]

I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think we should move all Bush supporters and Bush to Pakistan.

 

[Aimster]

i wonder who is more intelligent....
Bush or some of the members who posted in this thread.

 

[Deadtrees]

As long as Bush and his people fight in the front line, let them do it.

 

[trenchfoot]

Originally posted by: Aimster
i wonder who is more intelligent....
Bush or some of the members who posted in this thread.

lol, good one.:thumbsup: i was just now thinking the same thing.

 

[StageLeft]

I think he can do it. He's a strategic freaking genius and could probably tame the place within 3-4 months using no more than 40k troops, maybe a 15k troop surge if there is a problem.

 

[Craig234]

Let's see if he's man enough to carry out this threat

I think the actual question is whether bush is man enough not to start a war fought personally by others, and not even inclding Iraq but going back to how he happily cost some other man a spot in the 'sage' national guard so he could avoid viet nam, while he supported the war for others, I think the answer is no, he's not.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Aimster
i wonder who is more intelligent....
Bush or some of the members who posted in this thread.

I think anyone who would even consider invading Pakistan is totally out of their mind. We have to remember, Pakistan has nukes that are almost certain to find themselves in terrorist hands if we attack Pakistan. And it also send a terrible message because you never attack an ally and expect to ever have any future friends.

And we have another slight problem. Our intel about the rugged border regions is so poor that we don't even know for a certainty that Ossama and friends are even holed up there.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Is he attacking Pakistan as a country or stating that he would go after the terrorist hiding in Pakistan?

 

[shiner]

So now that Bush is talking about going into Pakistan where Bin Laden is thought to be hiding all the lefties who have been screaming from the rooftops about him not going after Bin Laden, or other terrorist cells hiding there, hard enough you are changing your position to "here we go again" or "what is he thinking" or "we shouldn't be there at all"

??

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: shinerburke
So now that Bush is talking about going into Pakistan where Bin Laden is thought to be hiding all the lefties who have been screaming from the rooftops about him not going after Bin Laden, or other terrorist cells hiding there, hard enough you are changing your position to "here we go again" or "what is he thinking" or "we shouldn't be there at all"

??

There are much smarter ways to go about this. That's the point of this entire thread. As you can see, bravado and military might are extremely limited when you're fighting a protean enemy that is extremely loyal to the cause and can't be bought off. Remember, these people are not stupid and they are bleeding us dry in this "GWOT." Overweight Americans won't have the stomach when there is a second sun shining brightly and violently over one of their cities. As someone mentioned earlier, Pakistan isn't just another country.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Is he attacking Pakistan as a country or stating that he would go after the terrorist hiding in Pakistan?

That's the type of technicality and semantics that's gotten this Administration in trouble over its lifetime.

Originally posted by: Nebor
Needs to be done. Tha Pakistanis have given up on the region. We have to pick up the slack.

:laugh: I'd love to see a strong, brave, and intelligent man like you join the armed forces and fight for freedom. We want bin laden's head on a shiskabob NOW!!!. O yeah, please pacify the people while you're there.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: shinerburke
So now that Bush is talking about going into Pakistan where Bin Laden is thought to be hiding all the lefties who have been screaming from the rooftops about him not going after Bin Laden, or other terrorist cells hiding there, hard enough you are changing your position to "here we go again" or "what is he thinking" or "we shouldn't be there at all"

??

No Shinerburke,

Your attempt to put lipstick on that pig won't cut it--GWB&co. can ask his man Pervez to increase the pressure on the tribal regions---but the very microsecond we put boots on the ground when Mushsharraf has said no is the microsecond that we destroy any political credibility Musharraf has in Pakistan. The moderates in Pakistan have a large and angry extreme radical right to contend with. And US boots on the ground could give the radical right there enough added support to take over the Pakistan.

That is and remains the difference between the lefties and GWB. Us lefties may want the same things but we recognize that there are ends that don't justify ANY MEANS to achieve.

Its simply the difference between sanity and our radical right.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

This might actually make some sense since it's where Al Quaeda is holed up. In fact, our efforts probably would have been better spent here than in Iraq. There two types of "invasions":

1. An invasion of northern Pakistan intended to root out the Taliban and Al Quaeda.

2. An invasion of northern Pakistan to accomplish the above combined with a military operation to secure the nukes.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: shinerburke
So now that Bush is talking about going into Pakistan where Bin Laden is thought to be hiding all the lefties who have been screaming from the rooftops about him not going after Bin Laden, or other terrorist cells hiding there, hard enough you are changing your position to "here we go again" or "what is he thinking" or "we shouldn't be there at all"

??

There are much smarter ways to go about this. That's the point of this entire thread. As you can see, bravado and military might are extremely limited when you're fighting a protean enemy that is extremely loyal to the cause and can't be bought off. Remember, these people are not stupid and they are bleeding us dry in this "GWOT." Overweight Americans won't have the stomach when there is a second sun shining brightly and violently over one of their cities. As someone mentioned earlier, Pakistan isn't just another country.

So we should invite the terrorists in Pakistan over for burgers and ice cream?

This is just another example of the anti Bush no matter what he does crowd. You know the ones.....they have been chanting the mantra of "Bush hasn't done enough to catch Bin Laden or stop the terrorists on the Afghan/beloved patriot border." So now it appears that he might do something and they suddenly switch to "Whoa there cowboy. Let's not do anything crazy."

Can't have it both ways.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: shinerburke
So now that Bush is talking about going into Pakistan where Bin Laden is thought to be hiding all the lefties who have been screaming from the rooftops about him not going after Bin Laden, or other terrorist cells hiding there, hard enough you are changing your position to "here we go again" or "what is he thinking" or "we shouldn't be there at all"

??

No Shinerburke,

Your attempt to put lipstick on that pig won't cut it--GWB&co. can ask his man Pervez to increase the pressure on the tribal regions---but the very microsecond we put boots on the ground when Mushsharraf has said no is the microsecond that we destroy any political credibility Musharraf has in Pakistan. The moderates in Pakistan have a large and angry extreme radical right to contend with. And US boots on the ground could give the radical right there enough added support to take over the Pakistan.

That is and remains the difference between the lefties and GWB. Us lefties may want the same things but we recognize that there are ends that don't justify ANY MEANS to achieve.

Its simply the difference between sanity and our radical right.

So going after Bin Laden and other terrorists isn't justifiable if they are somewhere that it isn't easy, for whatever reason, to get to?

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: shinerburke
So now that Bush is talking about going into Pakistan where Bin Laden is thought to be hiding all the lefties who have been screaming from the rooftops about him not going after Bin Laden, or other terrorist cells hiding there, hard enough you are changing your position to "here we go again" or "what is he thinking" or "we shouldn't be there at all"

??

There are much smarter ways to go about this. That's the point of this entire thread. As you can see, bravado and military might are extremely limited when you're fighting a protean enemy that is extremely loyal to the cause and can't be bought off. Remember, these people are not stupid and they are bleeding us dry in this "GWOT." Overweight Americans won't have the stomach when there is a second sun shining brightly and violently over one of their cities. As someone mentioned earlier, Pakistan isn't just another country.

So we should invite the terrorists in Pakistan over for burgers and ice cream?

This is just another example of the anti Bush no matter what he does crowd. You know the ones.....they have been chanting the mantra of "Bush hasn't done enough to catch Bin Laden or stop the terrorists on the Afghan/beloved patriot border." So now it appears that he might do something and they suddenly switch to "Whoa there cowboy. Let's not do anything crazy."

Can't have it both ways.

I understand your point and it's a valid one, but this journey would be far too dangerous to travel. Invasion isn't the answer and neither is a Sunday afternoon picnic. The real truth is that rugged land is dirt poor (=easier sanctuary for terrorists). The people there are extremely proud of their independence. Hell, they make their own guns and RPGs. The first thing for any contact is to understand the culture and respect it. The second thing is to bargain with them (they love to bargain). The third thing is to try to separate al qaeda from the natives. The last part is very difficult but if the people of Anbar province wanted it, then it's quite possible with non-arabs. But these things take time and patience. unfortuntely, American's have the attention span of a gnat and follow a political clock so I don't think it can be done within those dimensions.

Remember, as General Petraus said not too long ago, anti-insurgency operations can take decades. Trying to bomb your problems away may simply amplify it.

 

[Thump553]

If Bush hadn't started his ego-trip war in Iraq, and if he had seriously followed through on Afganistan (pacifying and rebuilding instead of doing half a job) then this could be a good idea-if it could be done without toppling the current government of Pakistan. After all, this almost certainly is where Osama and the top core of his gang are, which should be the central goal of his war on terror.

Given today's actual situation, especially in light of the fact that our "ally" In Pakistan is hanging onto control by the skin of his teeth, such an invasion would be a blunder of a magnitude unequalled since Hitler invaded the USSR.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And we have another slight problem. Our intel about the rugged border regions is so poor that we don't even know for a certainty that Ossama and friends are even holed up there.

umm, that is primarily because we have no freedom of movement on the Pakistani side of the border.

We would never "invade." That notion is ridiculous.

All we need is an executive order authorizing our Special Mission Units and Air Forces to operate freely throughout the NW sector of Pakistan. At the moment, our units are forced to watch the enemy through binoculars as they slip back across the Pakistani border every damn day; and that is completely unacceptable. (It's the DMZ, Laos, and Cambodia all over again!) We should simply be allowed to pursue and destroy our enemies wherever they run and hide! Period

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And we have another slight problem. Our intel about the rugged border regions is so poor that we don't even know for a certainty that Ossama and friends are even holed up there.

umm, that is primarily because we have no freedom of movement on the Pakistani side of the border.

We would never "invade." That notion is ridiculous.

All we need is an executive order authorizing our Special Mission Units and Air Forces to operate freely throughout the NW sector of Pakistan. At the moment, our units are forced to watch the enemy through binoculars as they slip back across the Pakistani border every damn day; and that is completely unacceptable. (It's the DMZ, Laos, and Cambodia all over again!) We should simply be allowed to pursue and destroy our enemies wherever they run and hide! Period

In case you didn't know, there are international laws against that. Besides, American drones have been over Pakistan and killing civilians with Hellfire missiles for years now. That hasn't work.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: shinerburke
So now that Bush is talking about going into Pakistan where Bin Laden is thought to be hiding all the lefties who have been screaming from the rooftops about him not going after Bin Laden, or other terrorist cells hiding there, hard enough you are changing your position to "here we go again" or "what is he thinking" or "we shouldn't be there at all"

??

There are much smarter ways to go about this. That's the point of this entire thread. As you can see, bravado and military might are extremely limited when you're fighting a protean enemy that is extremely loyal to the cause and can't be bought off. Remember, these people are not stupid and they are bleeding us dry in this "GWOT." Overweight Americans won't have the stomach when there is a second sun shining brightly and violently over one of their cities. As someone mentioned earlier, Pakistan isn't just another country.

Seems like thats the standard liberal mantra on how to go after terrorists these days.

Liberal: There are much smarter ways to go about this.
Person: And what would that be??
Liberal: Uhh...ummm. I'll have to get back to you on that.

Bush might not be going about things the smart way, but I'm sick of liberals saying theres a better way, without the slightest clue as to what that is.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: shinerburke
So now that Bush is talking about going into Pakistan where Bin Laden is thought to be hiding all the lefties who have been screaming from the rooftops about him not going after Bin Laden, or other terrorist cells hiding there, hard enough you are changing your position to "here we go again" or "what is he thinking" or "we shouldn't be there at all"

??

There are much smarter ways to go about this. That's the point of this entire thread. As you can see, bravado and military might are extremely limited when you're fighting a protean enemy that is extremely loyal to the cause and can't be bought off. Remember, these people are not stupid and they are bleeding us dry in this "GWOT." Overweight Americans won't have the stomach when there is a second sun shining brightly and violently over one of their cities. As someone mentioned earlier, Pakistan isn't just another country.

Seems like thats the standard liberal mantra on how to go after terrorists these days.

Liberal: There are much smarter ways to go about this.
Person: And what would that be??
Liberal: Uhh...ummm. I'll have to get back to you on that.

Bush might not be going about things the smart way, but I'm sick of liberals saying theres a better way, without the slightest clue as to what that is.

Did you read beyond that post or did it simply fit your agenda? Maybe you're too slow. If it's the latter, I already posted a response to his question.