Chmn of Joint Chiefs: We Can Leave Iraq

[WillowTree]

except Iraq didn't attack us and therefore weren't our enemy anymore than other governments who we disagree with on policy issues.

Silence,, Iraq was our enemy! we already had one war with them,, and they were violating all of the UN sanctions against them.. remember?

 

[Caligirl]

So we're finally getting serious about tracking down Obama and Alqada?

That's nice.

7 years late, of course, but better late than never.

We know where Obama is, silly.



As far as the plans, good news - Iraq seems to want this, americans want this, there is no clear definition of victory (so let's just declare it already) and it's not like we can't get involved if it blows up afterwards.

 

[del]

We know where Obama is, silly.

yep, he's meeting with ayres, rezco, farrakhan et al and plotting to take away our guns, money, churches and precious bodily fluids, too!

 

[BlackAsCoal]

It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out; particularly if Obama decides the US should unilaterally violate Pakistani soveriegnty.

He's already stated that.

In fact, the military is already carrying out the Obama plan.

 

[CSM]

He's already stated that.

In fact, the military is already carrying out the Obama plan.

Which was previously the Bush plan...heh.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

except Iraq didn't attack us and therefore weren't our enemy anymore than other governments who we disagree with on policy issues.

Pakistan and Afghanistan didn't attack us either.

The so-called hijackers were from Saudia Arabia.

When do you think Obama will launch an invasion of Saudia Arabia?

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Which was previously the Bush plan...heh.

Not really .. Bush was hesitant and Iraq was his war.

What you see today is the Obama Doctrine.

 

[Paulie]

It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out; particularly if Obama decides the US should unilaterally violate Pakistani soveriegnty.

What makes Pakistani sovereignty any more important than anyone else's? Because they're a perceived ally? An ally wouldn't harbor the terrorists widely known to be responsible for attacking you, and refuse you access to persue them.

 

[CSM]

What makes Pakistani sovereignty any more important than anyone else's? Because they're a perceived ally? An ally wouldn't harbor the terrorists widely known to be responsible for attacking you, and refuse you access to persue them.

All good questions. Is another country's sovereignty relevant to OUR national security or not?

 

[DavidS]

The point is there is a huge difference between the two.

As was recently leaked, Bush authorized special operations/ weapon strikes inside Pakistani borders; some criticized this action. Obama has indicated he would advocate much the same course of action with perhaps even more vigor. It will be interesting to see if Obama recieves like criticism with the same amount of passion (and yes, venom) from some of the posters that inhabit this board.

I haven't heard much criticism about Bush striking in Pakistan. Syria, now that's a different story. But even the nytimes has been mum about Bush striking in Pakistan.

I don't think Obama nor Bush should be striking in any foreign countries at all. This is something I've disagrees with Obama on since the beginning. Either we go into ALL of the countries and destroy all terrorist bases of operations, or we don't do anything at all. From the beginning we should've invaded, and by invaded I mean declared war on Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. We should've gone in with good intelligence, overthrown the governments that are allowing these terrorists to exist, wipe out the cells and gotten out. Instead, we're pussyfooting around the Middle East and doing pin-point strikes that misses the terrorists and hits schools or factories or villages and this is just making our problem worse. Either we go in, and we go in ALL THE WAY, or we do nothing. But this in-between shit we're doing is terrible. We should've never gone into Iraq... the religious Islamo-Facists hated Hussein and he hated them as well.

 

[DavidS]

Pakistan and Afghanistan didn't attack us either.

The so-called hijackers were from Saudia Arabia.

When do you think Obama will launch an invasion of Saudia Arabia?

Hopefully soon. Just take a few big fucken daisy cutters to those terrorists who are doing Hajj. Our problems will be solved the second the bombs go off.

[youtube]_upy14pesi4[/youtube]

Bomb's away!

 

[CSM]

Not really .. Bush was hesitant and Iraq was his war.

What you see today is the Obama Doctrine.

BAC, you know full well that the US military has been and remains engaged in Afghanistan long before Obama came on the scene as a Presidential candidate. Those operations in Afghanistan spilled across the Pakistani border long before Obama even announced his run for presidential nominee.

However, rename it the Obama plan if you like. Doing so may just lend more credability to the cross border special operations/weapons interdiction.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Hopefully soon. Just take a few big fucken daisy cutters to those terrorists who are doing Hajj. Our problems will be solved the second the bombs go off.

Sure, and whille we're off chasing ghosts in Saudia Arabia, which will cause the entire Arab world to explode .. the American economy completely collapses under the weight of skyrocketing fuel costs .. and who are we going to ask to pay fo this misadventure .. China?

At what point do we get smarter and recognize that you cannot shoot, murder, or bomb "terrorism" ???

 

[BlackAsCoal]

BAC, you know full well that the US military has been and remains engaged in Afghanistan long before Obama came on the scene as a Presidential candidate. Those operations in Afghanistan spilled across the Pakistani border long before Obama even announced his run for presidential nominee.

However, rename it the Obama plan if you like. Doing so may just lend more credability to the cross border special operations/weapons interdiction.

As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.

In fact, when Obama said it, McCain criticized him for it. Said it was nieve

Remember McCain .. the one everyone said was Bush 3?

 

[Paulie]

All good questions. Is another country's sovereignty relevant to OUR national security or not?

In many cases, yes. Where I draw the line personally, is our legal foundation for intervening, much less bombing and even of course invading and occupying.

Then of course there's always the fiscal matter. I'm not sure how much more spending on the overseas empire this country can handle.

If Pakistan was such an ally, they'd be handling the situation themselves. It is of course THEIR country, afterall. If there are dangerous terrorists taking refuge in their own country, you'd think they would have a vested interest in opposing that with all possible means, rather than taking the low road and pretending they have no authority over tribal areas.

We can continue to move forward with this kind of interventionist policy, if we really think it's making us secure, but we can't pretend that it isn't creating more and more enemies everyday. And we certainly can't pretend not to realize that when we intervene in certain countries for economic reasons, that people who take offense to that to the point they want to take up arms against us, they have a reason to be angry. We would be just as angry if it was happening to OUR country.

 

[CSM]

As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.

In fact, when Obama said it, McCain criticized him for it. Said it was nieve

Remember McCain .. the one everyone said was Bush 3?

I am trying to ascertain whether or not you agree with the Bush authorization of special operations inside Pakistan. I really don't care about the political rhetoric ...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

How dare you presume to speak for me?

You wouldn't make a pimple on my ass intellectually, sport.

So assuming that you can understand better than I do what I believe, want or expect, or what my words mean other than exactly what I have written is way the fuck beyond your pay grade, pal.

Sure thing, the fact you will not support actions by Bush but will Obama is all I need to know. It is Hypocritical beyond belief.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

I am trying to ascertain whether or not you agree with the Bush authorization of special operations inside Pakistan. I really don't care about the political rhetoric ...

I don't agree with the Bush policy with regards to Pakistan, nor do I agree with the Obama policy towrds Pakistan.

There is another elephant in this room ,, and it's called pipelines.

Chasing ghosts/terrorists is just the bullshit they tell the rubes .. but the business of pipelines is something they never mention, even though it is front and center in much of US foreign policy.

Question: Yoiu kill "Osama Bin Laden" but you also kill thousands of innocent civilians in the process.

Did you defeat terrorism?

 

[CSM]

I don't agree with the Bush policy with regards to Pakistan, nor do I agree with the Obama policy towrds Pakistan.

There is another elephant in this room ,, and it's called pipelines.

Chasing ghosts/terrorists is just the bullshit they tell the rubes .. but the business of pipelines is something they never mention, even though it is front and center in much of US foreign policy.

Question: Yoiu kill "Osama Bin Laden" but you also kill thousands of innocent civilians in the process.

Did you defeat terrorism?

Thanks for clarifying your position. I am not sure what pipelines have to do with military operations along the Pakistan/Afghan border so cannot comment.

As to your hypothetical, without any context it would seem the impulsive answer is "no".

 

[Paulie]

I don't agree with the Bush policy with regards to Pakistan, nor do I agree with the Obama policy towrds Pakistan.

There is another elephant in this room ,, and it's called pipelines.

Chasing ghosts/terrorists is just the bullshit they tell the rubes .. but the business of pipelines is something they never mention, even though it is front and center in much of US foreign policy.

Question: Yoiu kill "Osama Bin Laden" but you also kill thousands of innocent civilians in the process.

Did you defeat terrorism?

Nope. You breed more Osama Bin Ladens.