Obama Would Invade Pakistan

[Pangloss]

I agree that what Obama meant was to "take the terrorists out", and not intending to threaten the Pakistani government. Of course it would be TAKEN as threatening locally, but what I think is really interesting is the position that that would put our hypothetical President Obama in.

 

After years of criticizing President Bush's foreign policy, after saying that he would not have gone to Iraq, he would be pushing a REMARKABLY similar policy.

[CPL.Luke]

I wouldn't go that far, Certain policies need to be enacted that stop terrorism before it gets to far. However there is a profound difference between attacking a country and fighting war over a handfull of criminals and treating the terrorists like what they are criminals. countries cooperate to fight crime all the time, why should terrorism be different?

 

if a country refuses to cooperate and is harboring someone like osama then its quite simple to bring international pressure on them, like what happened in afghanistan.

[CDarwin]

I agree that what Obama meant was to "take the terrorists out", and not intending to threaten the Pakistani government. Of course it would be TAKEN as threatening locally, but what I think is really interesting is the position that that would put our hypothetical President Obama in.

 

After years of criticizing President Bush's foreign policy, after saying that he would not have gone to Iraq, he would be pushing a REMARKABLY similar policy.

 

No so similar. We're talking about crossing a border through the peaks of the Hindu Kush that isn't marked or patrolled to chase down militants. That's a far cry from the Bush doctrine of forcibly spreading democracy to the Middle East through the overthrow of established governments.

[ecoli]

No so similar. We're talking about crossing a border through the peaks of the Hindu Kush that isn't marked or patrolled to chase down militants. That's a far cry from the Bush doctrine of forcibly spreading democracy to the Middle East through the overthrow of established governments.

 

And, also considering, that a lot of dems have criticized and blamed Bush for not stopping 9/11 before it started.

 

Therefore, you could say it's certainly within the democratic platform to sponsor some sort of military action in Pakistan, especially if we had intelligence that suggested that the terrorists hiding there were planning on carrying out some sort of attack.

 

If you could convince the constituents that the terrorists in Pakistan posed a clear and present danger to Americans, I think you'd find that military action might not be so disagreeable. After all, many democrats support an invasion of Afghanistan, did they not?

 

Of course, the message of America's "war on terror" has gotten muddled up since then, due to the Iraq war, but that's not a reason the new president couldn't clarify it.

[Pangloss]

I wouldn't go that far, Certain policies need to be enacted that stop terrorism before it gets to far. However there is a profound difference between attacking a country and fighting war over a handfull of criminals and treating the terrorists like what they are criminals. countries cooperate to fight crime all the time, why should terrorism be different?

 

No so similar. We're talking about crossing a border through the peaks of the Hindu Kush that isn't marked or patrolled to chase down militants. That's a far cry from the Bush doctrine of forcibly spreading democracy to the Middle East through the overthrow of established governments.

 

Both valid points, but look at how far you had to travel to get there -- that's practically hair-splitting territory compared with the usual ABB arguments. The average peacenik is pretty much a "if they're waving a board with a nail in it you've already failed" kind of person.

 

And even amongst the mainstream anti-Bush crowd there's been a rallying cry of war=bad/peace=good for the last several years. Now we're talking about giving them exactly the kind of political change they've been asking for, right on a silver platter (first legislative then executive), and yet here are their heroes suddenly mouthing the same plattitudes that they've been complaining about from the Bad Guys.

 

As they say on ESPN, "oooo, that's gotta hurt". And it's gonna hurt again if they decide to bite the bullet and defend Obama anyway, and the right starts throwing it back in their faces. And it's gonna hurt even more if they decide to abandon him and have nothing left to embrace but political obscurity.

 

Incidentally, I believe this may also mark the end of the race to see which candidate amongst the Democrats is farthest to the left.

[Realitycheck]

I think we have already seen that Obama simply isn't president material. I'm not knocking a black president, but he should be playing it conservative now. He has made a couple of slips already and doesn't really have much experience at politics yet. I feel sorry for his investors.

[bascule]

I support the threatening of force against Pakistan.

 

As you might recall me mentioning a few times, there's this guy A.Q. Khan who's been kind of pissing me off. You see, he sold nuclear technology to Iran and North Korea. You might say he was the head of the international nuclear black market. He created Pakistan's nuclear bomb. After outing himself, he was pardoned by Musharraf.

 

He's never been questioned by the IAEA. In fact, on the night that Bush took credit for the IAEA's bust of Khan's network during the presidential debates with Kerry, the IAEA had asked Pakistan to question Khan and been denied.

 

I've also stated my belief that terrorism must be dealt with internally on a country-by-country basis (and thus a global "war on terrorism" is foolish) and Pakistan certainly has not done that.

 

I've also stated my support for precision airstrikes against Iran in order to take out their nuclear production capability, so long as it was part of an international effort to deter nuclear proliferation.

 

I would support action against Pakistan as part of an international coalition, both to secure information (now quite old information) regarding his dealings in the international nuclear black market and to end terrorist control in a country that won't police itself.

 

If anything, I'm mad at Bush for labeling Pakistan our "ally in the war on terror" as their president pardoned and protected the world's most notorious nuclear fugitive.

 

I have never supported the war against Iraq. I felt that unjustified. I think it's stupid to try to use opposition to invading Iraq, especially without support of the international community, as part of some category fallacy-based argument against invading Pakistan.

 

Not all of us lefties are peaceniks. Some of us just don't want stupid wars, and Iraq was a stupid war. A stupid, stupid war, supported by stupid people. Some of us aren't stupid.

[Realitycheck]

If we can keep Bin Laden on the ropes, trekking back and forth throughout the Hindu Kush, I think he might just die of natural causes ... of a cold.

[ParanoiA]

I've also stated my support for precision airstrikes against Iran in order to take out their nuclear production capability, so long as it was part of an international effort to deter nuclear proliferation.

 

So you wouldn't have any issues if Iran did this to us right? I guess I'm not understanding what ethic allows you to believe bombing another country that has not attacked us...yet again...is ok. Or are we abandoning principle under the guise of "national security" again?

 

I would support action against Pakistan as part of an international coalition, both to secure information (now quite old information) regarding his dealings in the international nuclear black market and to end terrorist control in a country that won't police itself.

 

Why should it be any of our business? If we concentrated on defense here at home and quit spreading "freedom and democracy" with guns and bombs then why would anyone attack us?

 

The nuclear black market is for us to deal with when it takes place on our soil, otherwise you're violationg another country's sovereignty because of your fear, or mistaken pragmatism - neither of which shares the severity of retaliation for an attack, which is supposed to be the reason why we support military action. Preemption is Bush's shameful policy, why should we perpetuate it? I could see working with other countries in the same capacity as we do for hunting down criminals and so forth, but if they don't cooperate I don't see how we ethically have a right to use force.

 

If anything, I'm mad at Bush for labeling Pakistan our "ally in the war on terror" as their president pardoned and protected the world's most notorious nuclear fugitive.

 

Particularly when you consider allies without ties to terror are hard to come by at all in that region. I wouldn't be looking for allies, I'd be looking to leave altogether and let them kill each other or grow up. We can deal with them when they share rationality with us.

 

I have never supported the war against Iraq. I felt that unjustified. I think it's stupid to try to use opposition to invading Iraq, especially without support of the international community, as part of some category fallacy-based argument against invading Pakistan.

 

I wish I could say the same. But honestly, I sat on the fence for years. I could go either way on any given day. Only now, do I feel like I have a position I feel confident about. Based on philosphy, ethics, ideology - not on success or failure. This is also why I'm a little concerned about the recent "success" of the surge. I'm afraid that if we're winning this war, americans will change their minds about withdrawing. Like winning suddenly justifies the occupation...

[ecoli]

This is also why I'm a little concerned about the recent "success" of the surge. I'm afraid that if we're winning this war, americans will change their minds about withdrawing. Like winning suddenly justifies the occupation...

Not of justifying the occupation... it justifies staying longer so that we can fix the mess that we made.

[ParanoiA]

Not of justifying the occupation... it justifies staying longer so that we can fix the mess that we made.

 

And don't let my post mislead, I do believe we are obligated to fix our mess. I'm operating under the assumption that our leaving will relax the insurgency. I know, I know, there's also the threat of civil war. So whatever we do here, in my opinion anyway, should be out of obligation to right our wrong, however possible that may be. If that means leaving troops for several more years, so be it. I just don't want americans getting excited about winning to the extent we're back to kicking ass without ethical reverance.

[Pangloss]

I support what Obama said as well, and think we should keep the pressure on Pakistan. But that's not really the subject here.

 

Let me put it this way: I'd be willing to bet just about anything that the vast, overwhelming majority of the people who contributed the funds that are sitting in Obama's campaign coffers right now will disagree with the position he's just stated on Pakistan.

 

The money-lenders from the Temple of liberalism may take a practical view based on the need to appeal to moderate voters. But the issue will not sit well with them. They've been adhering to Obama in part because he lacks Clinton's perceived "Bush lite" problem. But now he's taken the risk of throwing that edge right out the window. This is why so many political observers were stunned by this position, even though it's relatively consistent with earlier statements.

 

Try this little experiment: Go over to DemocraticUnderground.com and post the words: "Barrack Obama is now every bit as 'Bush Lite' as Hillary Clinton is", and watch the reaction you get. Heck, I doubt it'll go five posts before the word "racist" is used.

[lucaspa]

Well the no-war-ever crowd is gonna have a tough time swallowing this one. Their man Obama said today that he would invade Pakistan to hunt down Al Qaeda with or without Pakistan's permission. Unauthorized US raids under Bush have come under fire by the political left, but apparently Obama has no problem invading a sovereign nation without its permission in order to pursue US national security. How politically incorrect!

 

 

First, let's get this accurate! Obama said he would violate the sovereignity of Pakistan, not "invade" Pakistan. Those are 2 very different things.

 

An invasion involves deliberate and intentional conflict with the armed forces and government of the nation. Obama would send in spec ops or an air strike to get at al-Qaeda. Who is obviously not either the government nor armed forces of Pakistan. This is a violation of Pakistan's sovereignity in that we are using armed force in their territory without the permission of the government. If the Pakistani armed forces find out, their obligation is to "defend" their country, even if the force is directed at people/organization that they themselves have declared enemies/criminals.

 

So let's discuss the rationality and morality of a violation of sovereignity, not "invade". "Invade" simply has us discussing a strawman.

 

Not all of us lefties are peaceniks. Some of us just don't want stupid wars, and Iraq was a stupid war. A stupid, stupid war, supported by stupid people. Some of us aren't stupid.

 

I agree. I have always stated that, in the war against al-Qaeda, the USA lost a major battle the moment we invaded Iraq. The troops didn't lose the battle, but the NCA did. Supporting the Afghan opposition to the Taliban was an appropriate strategy against al-Qaeda. It deprived them of a safe haven. Invading Iraq gave them that safe haven back, as well as providing a huge recruiting bonus.

[Pangloss]

First, let's get this accurate! Obama said he would violate the sovereignity of Pakistan, not "invade" Pakistan. Those are 2 very different things.

Ok, I acknowledge the point, but I think with regard to the anti-war crowd it amounts to the same thing.

[lucaspa]

We also haven't discussed the possibility of this being a discreet intervention. Would it be possible to send special forces into Pakistan without anyone knowing about it?

 

Yes. It also depends on the size and duration of the incursion. An air strike would be visible, but it doesn't last long and thus the violation to Pakistan's sovereignity can be forgotten by Pakistanis.

 

It also depends on location. Even if the incursion is by, say, a brigade force but is up in the remote mountains on the border with Afghanistan and doesn't get anywhere near the major population centers of Pakistan, it can also be downplayed and the Pakistanis might be able to forgive.

 

But whoever said that a delicate balancing act must done weighing the benefits/costs hit the nail on the head, IMO. Would the possible outrage in the Islamic world -- and thus sympathy for al-Qaeda -- outweigh the benefit of taking out a few "high value" leaders?

 

With the example of strategic stupidity of the invasion of Iraq in mind, I have no confidence that the NCA can make an intelligent and correct assessment and decision.

 

Ok, I acknowledge the point, but I think with regard to the anti-war crowd it amounts to the same thing.

 

It may, but we are interested in reality, not the misperception of reality by a segment of the population, aren't we? On one extreme you have those who favor any and all military action. On the other extreme are those who oppose any and all military action. Those 2 extremes don't help anyone reach a rational and reasonable decision on the costs/benefits of any particular military action, do they?

[CDarwin]

I support the threatening of force against Pakistan.

I've also stated my support for precision airstrikes against Iran in order to take out their nuclear production capability, so long as it was part of an international effort to deter nuclear proliferation.

 

Hmm, but would be setting back Iran's nuclear program however many years that would buy be worth polarizing the Iranian people against the rest of the world? That is exactly what the hardliners in Iran that our the real threat to world security want.

[Realitycheck]

Yes. It also depends on the size and duration of the incursion. An air strike would be visible, but it doesn't last long and thus the violation to Pakistan's sovereignity can be forgotten by Pakistanis.

 

It also depends on location. Even if the incursion is by, say, a brigade force but is up in the remote mountains on the border with Afghanistan and doesn't get anywhere near the major population centers of Pakistan, it can also be downplayed and the Pakistanis might be able to forgive.

 

But whoever said that a delicate balancing act must done weighing the benefits/costs hit the nail on the head, IMO. Would the possible outrage in the Islamic world -- and thus sympathy for al-Qaeda -- outweigh the benefit of taking out a few "high value" leaders?

 

With the example of strategic stupidity of the invasion of Iraq in mind, I have no confidence that the NCA can make an intelligent and correct assessment and decision.

 

 

 

It may, but we are interested in reality, not the misperception of reality by a segment of the population, aren't we? On one extreme you have those who favor any and all military action. On the other extreme are those who oppose any and all military action. Those 2 extremes don't help anyone reach a rational and reasonable decision on the costs/benefits of any particular military action, do they?

 

Right on. Do we have any idea how widespread these training grounds run throughout this territory or even where they are, even just a fraction of them? According to globalsecurity.org, total membership of Al Qaeda is in the 1000's, at best. (This sounds like a really small estimate.) It seems to be that their recruiting potential is the problem. After all, their sermons are derived from the same core as regular Islam. It sounds like another hornets nest more than anything. Finding needles in a haystack where everyone looks and acts the same.

[Pangloss]

It may, but we are interested in reality, not the misperception of reality by a segment of the population, aren't we? On one extreme you have those who favor any and all military action. On the other extreme are those who oppose any and all military action. Those 2 extremes don't help anyone reach a rational and reasonable decision on the costs/benefits of any particular military action, do they?

 

I was making an observation about the political ramifications and the election in general. In that arena perception often counts for more than reality. Sadly, not everyone looks beneath the surface.

 

But it's not entirely a superficial thing. While one cannot dismiss Obama as an anti-war candidate (he's never said he's opposed to war on any grounds, and has specifically stated otherwise), it is a reasonable thing for people to question whether someone who stands as ideologically far to the left as Obama does would be willing to put up more than a token defense. Democrats do not have a good track record in this area since Vietnam. Clinton seemed content to lob a cruise missile now and then (mostly when he got caught with his pants down), and Carter's name has practically become synonymous with that of Neville Chamberlain. Americans have a reasonable question to ask here, and Obama's recent statements have brought that question to the fore.

 

But IMO that's not a bad thing. The question needs to be asked, and it needs to be answered by the candidate, and that's exactly what's happening. (shrug)

[calbiterol]

I apologize if this post comes across as beating a dead horse, but I felt the need to say it.

 

Obama never says that he would ignore diplomatic efforts with the Pakistani government. In fact, he emphasizes that he WOULD pursue a diplomatic solution - albeit a "tough love" solution - and that he would encourage the Pakistani government to act. And if the Pakistani government ignored these recommendations? A nation has every right and every reason, especially in the international legal community, to defend itself against sovereign threats and to seek prosecution and retribution against those who attack it. Al Qaeda has already attacked Americans on American soil, and as long as the Pakistani government refuses to take action and no Pakistani citizens or property are harmed, in my mind, America has every right to defend herself.

 

Aside from that statement, I have this, and only this, to say:

 

Where does Obama mention invading Pakistan?

 

Military diplomacy is always a last resort, and Obama mentions this in his speech. He never uses the word "invade" or any form of it, and nor does he ever imply it. Military action against terrorists is just that - small-scale military action against a localized enemy. The missed opportunity that Obama referenced with "actionable intelligence" on "high-level" al Qaeda operating in Pakistan would not have required an invasion. A simple air strike with a single smart missile would have accomplished such a mission, and a stealth bomber, although violating sovereign Pakistani airspace, would most probably have remained undetected. Likewise, a small special forces operational detachment (such as Delta or Navy DEVGRU / Seal Team Six) could have been tasked the mission, with the same net result - the internationally deniable assassination of al Qaeda officials with no provable origin. The mysterious explosion or execution of a number of high-ranking al Qaeda, while extremely suspicious, could not publicly be criticized by a government without fear of extreme political backlash among the international community.

 

Obama was merely putting into public words the policies that most American presidents abide by under extreme circumstances in what is labeled "black ops" military action.

 

Cheers,

Calbit

 

P.S.: The potential innuendo here is so great that I could not ignore it

Clinton seemed content to lob a cruise missile now and then (mostly when he got caught with his pants down)

[Realitycheck]

Here's a cruise missile for you.

 

This is way off topic, but I really want to inject something here. Doesn't it really piss you off when someone suggests that you are gay because you don't want to be an idiot and go to war in impossible wars. Never ceases to amaze me the incredible amounts of stupidity that war mongers get themselves into. Welcome to the real me, unbridled by pain and stupidity. Sorry if I am offending anyone, but I now feel more inclined to back up my arguments with lots of support against anyone thinking that they can really successfully change the world with war on a continual, neverending basis.

 

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

 

Oh yeah, and I didn't mean that all wars are unneccessary. Some situations should be fixed. It just seems like there are some parallels of futility between trying to dismantle "axes of evil" and endlessly warring heathens, if you really want to go out on a limb. Of course, we won't really be having much of that anymore.

[lucaspa]

Right on. Do we have any idea how widespread these training grounds run throughout this territory or even where they are, even just a fraction of them? According to globalsecurity.org, total membership of Al Qaeda is in the 1000's, at best. (This sounds like a really small estimate.) It seems to be that their recruiting potential is the problem. After all, their sermons are derived from the same core as regular Islam. It sounds like another hornets nest more than anything. Finding needles in a haystack where everyone looks and acts the same.

 

In order for al-Qaeda to win its war, the USA must be stupid enough to make all Islam the enemy. That is, al-Qaeda must convince Muslims that the USA is against Islam. If that happens, then the West is grossly outnumbered in people and then al-Qaeda can turn this into a conventional war and actually militarily defeat the West. It can't do that by terrorist tactics.

 

Actually, a membership of over 2,000 sounds large to me. I don't think real al-Qaeda membership is that large.

 

The problem is that someone has to exert sovereignity over the region and arrest/fight/kill al-Qaeda and destroy the camps. And stay around so the camps aren't reestablished. That happened in Afghanistan with the new government actively fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda. In Pakistan, it is going to have to be the tribes in the region or the central Pakistani government. We have the ability to raid the camps, but not the ability to establish a permanent military and civil presence.

 

It is a reasonable thing for people to question whether someone who stands as ideologically far to the left as Obama does would be willing to put up more than a token defense.

 

It is reasonable to question ALL candidates on their stance on defense. As we see in Iraq, you can err on being too warlike, too.

 

Democrats do not have a good track record in this area since Vietnam. Clinton seemed content to lob a cruise missile now and then (mostly when he got caught with his pants down), and Carter's name has practically become synonymous with that of Neville Chamberlain. Americans have a reasonable question to ask here, and Obama's recent statements have brought that question to the fore.

 

Again, if we are going to reasonably address the issue, we have to look deeper.

1) Carter tried the military option. The military failed Carter, not the other way around. Any invasion to rescue the hostages after the aborted attempt would just have gotten them killed. The failure of the military left Carter with no choice but to pursue diplomacy.

2) It was the Republicans who opposed intervention in both Iraq and Kosovo and limited Clinton to "no fly zones" and bombing in Kosovo. As it happens, both tactics accomplished the results desired -- with minimal military involvement. Yes, we could have invaded Serbia, but that would have ended just as badly as invading Iraq has. Clinton got his objectives achieved.

3) I will say this again: we have overreacted to the "danger" of al-Qaeda. We are so afraid of Americans (us as individuals) being killed that we have let that fear rule our response and cloud our judgement. al-Qaeda can kill some Americans, but al-Qaeda cannot destroy the USA. So, based on the actual threat posed by al-Qaeda in the 1990s (and even now in the 2000s), Clinton's response was appropriate. Invading Afghanistan to get at Bin Lauden then would have been disastrous. In the event, the USA didn't invade Afghanistan, but used local allies and supported them with air power directed by special forces.

 

In my very strong opinion, people are so scared that they might be killed in a terrorist attack that they have lost all judgement and are advocating policies to keep them "safe" that are disastrous. We're all going to die eventually, people. What we, as supposed patriots, are supposed to care about is the USA, not our individual skins.

 

But IMO that's not a bad thing. The question needs to be asked, and it needs to be answered by the candidate, and that's exactly what's happening. (shrug)

 

Yes, it must be asked. And we as a society must have the discussion about what we consider moral and appropriate to defend ourselves. There is no good answer here. We are using a double standard in regard to this hypothetical about Pakistan. We would never tolerate military action on our soil by a foreign power, even when they claim "self-defense". In fact, look at the Irish Republican Army in the 1970s and 1980s. They used the USA to buy weapons, get funds, recruit operatives, and plan operations. Yet we would never have permitted Britain to send planes and bomb a house where IRA members were known to be!

 

Basically, our argument is "we can do this because we have the power and you don't" Am I against in incursion into Pakistan? No. But I'm not going to delude myself that I am not in a morally ambiguous area and am not using a double standard.

 

Obama never says that he would ignore diplomatic efforts with the Pakistani government. In fact, he emphasizes that he WOULD pursue a diplomatic solution - albeit a "tough love" solution - and that he would encourage the Pakistani government to act. And if the Pakistani government ignored these recommendations? A nation has every right and every reason, especially in the international legal community, to defend itself against sovereign threats and to seek prosecution and retribution against those who attack it.

 

See above. No, a nation does NOT have "every right". Our rights stop at the border of another sovereign nation. We are proposing to ignore that. However, don't delude yourself that we have "every right and reason" here, because some day that is going to come back and bite you in the ass.

 

as long as the Pakistani government refuses to take action and no Pakistani citizens or property are harmed, in my mind, America has every right to defend herself.

 

That caveat can't be met. Remember, many members of al-Qaeda are Pakistani citizens. And there is always collateral damage. So, if you are really serious about this "as long as ...", then we can't ever act.

 

Military diplomacy

 

That's an oxymoron if ever there was one!

 

The missed opportunity that Obama referenced with "actionable intelligence" on "high-level" al Qaeda operating in Pakistan would not have required an invasion.

 

And this is a problem with a lot of people on this subject. The supposition is that killing a few leaders will stop al-Qaeda. How stupid can you get! Doesn't anyone read ANY history? It is the idea/movement that you have to kill. If you kill a leader, then next one in line steps forward to take his place. You can hope the replacement isn't as competent as the guy he replaced, but then again, he might be MORE competent.

 

A simple air strike with a single smart missile would have accomplished such a mission, and a stealth bomber, although violating sovereign Pakistani airspace, would most probably have remained undetected. Likewise, a small special forces operational detachment (such as Delta or Navy DEVGRU / Seal Team Six) could have been tasked the mission, with the same net result - the internationally deniable assassination of al Qaeda officials with no provable origin.

 

Well, not "deniable". If a bomb drops out of the sky, it's pretty sure the USA did it. However, the key here is that most Pakistani people are not bothered, so they can forgive the intrusion into their soveriegn territory.

 

The mysterious explosion or execution of a number of high-ranking al Qaeda, while extremely suspicious, could not publicly be criticized by a government without fear of extreme political backlash among the international community.

 

Please don't be so naive. Israel has been trying this for years, but still ends up being criticized for it. The issue is how severe the criticism is and whether the long term harm is greater than the short term gain of getting rid of a few al-Qaeda leaders.

 

An alternative would be to insert some spec ops teams to laser-designate training bases etc for more massive airstrikes. But again, the only long term solution is for Pakistan to assert actual civil and military control over the area.

 

The facts on the ground are simply that Musharef cannot do so at this time. The action would offend politically powerful members of his country and could lead to his ouster.

[Realitycheck]

The problem is that someone has to exert sovereignity over the region and arrest/fight/kill al-Qaeda and destroy the camps. And stay around so the camps aren't reestablished. That happened in Afghanistan with the new government actively fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda. In Pakistan, it is going to have to be the tribes in the region or the central Pakistani government. We have the ability to raid the camps, but not the ability to establish a permanent military and civil presence.

 

I am just proposing that, realistically, all they have to do is see the US coming at them a mile away, and they fade away into the populace. It sounds like a really stupid idea. If it would work, I would say go ahead, I wish you luck, but it sounds like more of an inflammatory action than anything. How many actual al qaeda did we kill in Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Indonesia, everywhere? Obviously not enough. It's an impossible feat.

[Genecks]

Well the no-war-ever crowd is gonna have a tough time swallowing this one. Their man Obama said today that he would invade Pakistan to hunt down Al Qaeda with or without Pakistan's permission.[/url]

 

That's the kind of person I can vote for: Someone who knows the job of the U.S. President is to attack your enemy and give the senate the job of economics.

[ParanoiA]

In my very strong opinion, people are so scared that they might be killed in a terrorist attack that they have lost all judgement and are advocating policies to keep them "safe" that are disastrous. We're all going to die eventually, people. What we, as supposed patriots, are supposed to care about is the USA, not our individual skins.

 

You know, I don't get that. Nobody I talk to seems scared of anything, yet half of them love the idea of rolling tanks and killing people over there. I'm starting to seriously consider the psychology of "reality TV" and american boredom. It almost reminds me more of the "drama queens" we meet in our life. People that make a mountain out of a mole hill because they need that drama - they want for something to be "going down".

 

Fear is involved, but I'm wondering if that's as overblown as the idea that the terrorists attack us because we're "free".

 

I heard someone mention yesterday about the one serious problem about reality TV - shows like Cops. Something I had never really considered. It's dangerous to turn people's real lives into entertainment. We watch some idiot get arrested on Cops, for beating his wife or something, and we don't have any sympathy for the guy - then the camera sweeps the house and there's little kids wandering around. I mean...this is kinda sick.

 

Anyway, I just can't help wondering now if many americans just wanted something to be "going down". Something important, serious - war. Terrorists gave us an excuse, and now we have War TV. People's real lives being our entertainment.

[Genecks]

People are scared, especially when they meet a real terrorist. A good amount of people act tough as nails, but in reality they aren't. They start to show fear when they begin to notice they aren't so tough compared to a real terrorist. They show fear when they aren't as smart or quick or wise as the terrorist before them.

 

I think people tend to create drama and become the victor through that drama in order to create more ethos for themselves within a social setting/reality. People tend to stop being scared, however, when they feel oppressed.

 

I'm thinking they might be scared to be in a tank when they notice some guy about 500 yards away can blow it up. Yet I won't deny that with some time, America could have a country filled with people who are like soldiers from past wars: They don't care for their lives; their job is to serve their nation and die for it.

 

Personally, I wouldn't mind sitting at a table with all of them. I could talk to Kim Jong-il about his books.