Netphoria Message Board


Go Back   Netphoria Message Board > Archives > General Chat Archive
Register Netphoria's Amazon.com Link Members List Photo Album Mark Forums Read

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-01-2007, 05:07 PM   #1
ChrisChiasson
Apocalyptic Poster
 
Posts: 1,019
Default Obama willing to invade Pakistan in al-Qaeda hunt

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2182955.ece

 
ChrisChiasson is offline
Old 08-01-2007, 05:22 PM   #2
Corganist
Minion of Satan
 
Corganist's Avatar
 
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,239
Default

So Obama wants to unconditionally talk to countries that we're on not-so-good terms with (Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc.)...and invade countries we are on halfway decent terms with? That makes perfect sense.

Obama is in way over his head.

 
Corganist is offline
Old 08-01-2007, 05:25 PM   #3
redbull
Immortal
 
redbull's Avatar
 
Location: like liutenant dan i'm rollin'
Posts: 21,032
Default

i'm torn between my agreeance with corganist and my dislike of him

 
redbull is offline
Old 08-01-2007, 05:27 PM   #4
Garlic Wolf
Pledge
 
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 58
Default

Obama is really fucking his chances of getting elected now. He'll be a good VP to Hillary.

 
Garlic Wolf is offline
Old 08-01-2007, 05:56 PM   #5
Andrew_Pakula
Fine! I'll go make my own
web site. With Blackjack,
and Hookers... Actually,
forget the web site.
 
Andrew_Pakula's Avatar
 
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 3,813
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corganist
So Obama wants to unconditionally talk to countries that we're on not-so-good terms with (Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc.)...and invade countries we are on halfway decent terms with? That makes perfect sense.

Obama is in way over his head.
At least he wants to actually still look for Osama, Bush on the other hand basically gave up on that years ago.

That being said there is no need to invade Pakistan, just have your troops stray into Pakistani territory whenever you need to without asking permission. They would be looking for him in the mountainous area anyways.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

 
Andrew_Pakula is offline
Old 08-01-2007, 06:15 PM   #6
dudehitscar
Apocalyptic Poster
 
Posts: 2,652
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corganist
So Obama wants to unconditionally talk to countries that we're on not-so-good terms with (Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc.)...and invade countries we are on halfway decent terms with? That makes perfect sense.

Obama is in way over his head.

1) nothing wrong with talking to those countries. It is just talk.

2) If Al queda is found to have training camps and bases in Pakinstan and that government won't do anything about it then I think we should be willing to go in and destroy their camps with or without their permission. It makes a ton more sense then what we've been doing in Iraq.

Obama would do all he could to avoid that from happening diplomatically(unlike Bush) first but in the end it should be an option.

Obama is a smart man.

 
dudehitscar is offline
Old 08-01-2007, 06:51 PM   #7
Cup O Mercury
Ownz
 
Cup O Mercury's Avatar
 
Location: Virginia
Posts: 778
Default

He's got balls, I like his balls.

But talking to our enemies.

Wow dudehitscar you would talk to North Korea but you want talk to me?

 
Cup O Mercury is offline
Old 08-01-2007, 07:01 PM   #8
Corganist
Minion of Satan
 
Corganist's Avatar
 
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,239
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew_Pakula
At least he wants to actually still look for Osama, Bush on the other hand basically gave up on that years ago.
I don't believe Obama has a lot of conviction here. If I really thought that he was saying this because he believes its a feasible plan to get at Al Qaeda, that'd be one thing. But I'm more of the mind that he's just saying whatever he thinks will make him look good next to Hillary. If people think Hillary is being too hawkish, then he plays himself as the reasonable alternative who will talk to our enemies no questions asked...and if the next week people think Hillary is playing things too soft on terror, suddenly he plays himself as this gung-ho John Wayne type who'll march into an ally country and kick terrorist ass. Its just a silly game of political one-upsmanship. (And frankly, Obama is showing he's not in Hillary's league when it comes to that).

Quote:
That being said there is no need to invade Pakistan, just have your troops stray into Pakistani territory whenever you need to without asking permission. They would be looking for him in the mountainous area anyways.
If it were that easy, we'd be doing it already. Its real easy to look tough on terror by talking hypothetically about making minimal incursions into Pakistan. But the fact of the matter is that the Pakistani government is bending over backwards in order to stay relatively friendly with us as it is. The fundamentalists who oppose Musharraf aren't going to sit idly by if the US "accidentally" wanders into Pakistan. The worst fear right now is that the fundamentalists get fed up with Musharraf's treating the US with kid gloves and overthrow him...and then we end up with a hostile, fundamentalist, terror-harboring country with nuclear weapons.

 
Corganist is offline
Old 08-01-2007, 08:05 PM   #9
Heat6Jones
Demi-God
 
Heat6Jones's Avatar
 
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 334
Default

I think I'd rather have the Bush administration stick around before putting Hillary and/or Obama in the White House.

How silly we were to have faith in anything.

 
Heat6Jones is offline
Old 08-01-2007, 09:07 PM   #10
homechicago
Apocalyptic Poster
 
homechicago's Avatar
 
Location: THIS IS IT!
Posts: 2,921
Default

"who will talk to our enemies no questions asked"

i like how the media has played telephone with what obama said in the debate and made him into some half-wit who would be used by hostile leaders.

this country has so many people willing to let an australian man tell them how and what to think. pathetic.

 
homechicago is offline
Old 08-01-2007, 09:14 PM   #11
dudehitscar
Apocalyptic Poster
 
Posts: 2,652
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corganist
I don't believe Obama has a lot of conviction here. If I really thought that he was saying this because he believes its a feasible plan to get at Al Qaeda, that'd be one thing. But I'm more of the mind that he's just saying whatever he thinks will make him look good next to Hillary. If people think Hillary is being too hawkish, then he plays himself as the reasonable alternative who will talk to our enemies no questions asked...and if the next week people think Hillary is playing things too soft on terror, suddenly he plays himself as this gung-ho John Wayne type who'll march into an ally country and kick terrorist ass. Its just a silly game of political one-upsmanship. (And frankly, Obama is showing he's not in Hillary's league when it comes to that).



Your opinion and nothing more. Your condemning Obama on a hunch instead of looking at his ideas rationally. Pretty unfair for someone so new to the scene.

 
dudehitscar is offline
Old 08-01-2007, 09:53 PM   #12
Corganist
Minion of Satan
 
Corganist's Avatar
 
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,239
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dudehitscar


Your opinion and nothing more. Your condemning Obama on a hunch instead of looking at his ideas rationally. Pretty unfair for someone so new to the scene.
If there was anything rational to the guys ideas, it might be easier to look at them rationally. But like I said, the guy is all over the map. I mean, sure, it is my opinion that Obama is getting in over his head by continually taking opinions with the primary goal of one-upping Hillary (hence why I said "I believe..." and "I'm of the mind..."), but its not like its that inplausible. Beating the war drum with Pakistan while allowing for the possibility of powwows with Iran and Syria doesn't make a lot of sense on its face.

As for this business about being "fair" to Obama...do you really think that I of all people am reveling in the fact that Hillary Clinton is cruising to the Democratic nomination? I wish someone would step up and give her a challenge, and Obama is the best guy to do it...but IMO he's screwing it up every time he opens his mouth and shows his inexperience and naivete.

 
Corganist is offline
Old 08-01-2007, 09:56 PM   #13
candycane
Demi-God
 
candycane's Avatar
 
Posts: 404
Default

Haha! who's the cowboy now!

Thanks Obama for reminding us all that Bush is not as much of a reckless asshole as 8 years of liberal hammering has lead us to believe.

 
candycane is offline
Old 08-02-2007, 12:16 AM   #14
jczeroman
inactive user
 
jczeroman's Avatar
 
Location: B1G Country
Posts: 14,442
Default

great. Now you get to pick candidates based on which countries they want to invade.

 
jczeroman is offline
Old 08-02-2007, 12:29 AM   #15
Future Boy
The Man of Tomorrow
 
Future Boy's Avatar
 
Posts: 26,988
Default

It might be best to know before hand.

 
Future Boy is offline
Old 08-02-2007, 01:06 AM   #16
Eric Blair
Apocalyptic Poster
 
Eric Blair's Avatar
 
Location: Let's hang ourselves immediately!
Posts: 2,274
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dudehitscar
1) nothing wrong with talking to those countries. It is just talk.

2) If Al queda is found to have training camps and bases in Pakinstan and that government won't do anything about it then I think we should be willing to go in and destroy their camps with or without their permission. It makes a ton more sense then what we've been doing in Iraq.

Obama would do all he could to avoid that from happening diplomatically(unlike Bush) first but in the end it should be an option.

Obama is a smart man.
You just won't have your precious democrats criticized will you? Going in to Pakistan to destroy Al Qaeda camps is pointless and completely idiotic. It makes no sense. It will anger a lot of people, violate international law and do nothing in the long or short term to stop terrorism. Destroying a few camps won't do shit. All this proves is that people like Obama have no intention of radically changing American foreign policy.

Last edited by Eric Blair : 08-02-2007 at 05:55 AM.

 
Eric Blair is offline
Old 08-02-2007, 01:10 AM   #17
Eric Blair
Apocalyptic Poster
 
Eric Blair's Avatar
 
Location: Let's hang ourselves immediately!
Posts: 2,274
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by candycane
Haha! who's the cowboy now!

Thanks Obama for reminding us all that Bush is not as much of a reckless asshole as 8 years of liberal hammering has lead us to believe.
What a bizarre conclusion. Obama's willingness to invade Pakistan means that Bush and his administration is vindicated.

I predict that anyone with half a brain will not think this.

 
Eric Blair is offline
Old 08-02-2007, 02:01 AM   #18
MadManMead
Pledge
 
Posts: 207
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew_Pakula
At least he wants to actually still look for Osama, Bush on the other hand basically gave up on that years ago.
Osama bin Laden is dead. He had health problems at the time of 9/11 and no new footage of him has surfaced since (at the very latest) October/November 2004. In addition to that, there has been a significant upswing in videos featuring only Ayman Zawahiri, who is Al Qaeda No. 2. The appearance of Zawahiri in videos by himself seems to coincide with bin Laden ceasing to appear. Hence, bin Laden is dead.

It is also important to note that it is to neither side's advantage to point out the obvious. The Bush Administration needs a boogeyman and the radical Islam movement needs a figurehead. Since bin Laden didn't die in a "martyr"-like fashion, it is not advantageous for jihadists to acknowledge his demise.

Of course, this doesn't excuse Bush for not going after bin Laden more aggressively after 9/11. I'm just explaining why catching bin Laden isn't a valid reason for invading Pakistan now.

Quote:
That being said there is no need to invade Pakistan, just have your troops stray into Pakistani territory whenever you need to without asking permission. They would be looking for him in the mountainous area anyways.
I don't think this is a good idea. If we cross over into Pakistan and start attacking terrorists, we run the risk of igniting a full-blown insurrection. If Pakistan is destabilized, there is a good possibility radical Islamists could take over the country, nuclear weapons and all. Add to this the fact that India, Pakistan's enemy, is also a nuclear power and we would be asking for trouble.

Oh, and Corganist's right. Obama is way out of his league. Clinton, at the very least, has a decent grasp of foreign policy issues.

 
MadManMead is offline
Old 08-02-2007, 02:44 AM   #19
candycane
Demi-God
 
candycane's Avatar
 
Posts: 404
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ERIC BLAIR!
What a bizarre conclusion. Obama's willingness to invade Pakistan means that Bush and his administration is vindicated.

I predict that anyone with half a brain will not think this.
Predict away dickhead. Funny that my first time back you find me right away jew hater! lol

It's Irony with a twist of sarcasm this time. Correct me if you please Kiwi.

edit: And don't try and imply that you are the authority on other people's ideas. (Future and past applies) At all times you are a douche.

Obama's willingness to invade Pakistan means that the alternative to the evil chimp Bush may be just as bad or even worse. Consider the radical idea that it could possibly be true. Fuck off EricBLAIR! (Douchebag)

Last edited by candycane : 08-02-2007 at 03:08 AM.

 
candycane is offline
Old 08-02-2007, 03:43 AM   #20
darcyismybass
Apocalyptic Poster
 
darcyismybass's Avatar
 
Location: makin movies, makin songs and fightin 'round the world
Posts: 1,431
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadManMead
Clinton, at the very least, has a decent grasp of foreign policy issues.
Not to mention her husband's administration got the closest to actually killing Bin Laden.

 
darcyismybass is offline
Old 08-02-2007, 05:41 AM   #21
GlasgowKiss
Quaid Hates You
 
GlasgowKiss's Avatar
 
Location: Hollywood
Posts: 14,160
Default

He's just watched too much 24, give him a break.

 
GlasgowKiss is offline
Old 08-02-2007, 09:02 AM   #22
Cup O Mercury
Ownz
 
Cup O Mercury's Avatar
 
Location: Virginia
Posts: 778
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darcyismybass
Not to mention her husband's administration got the closest to actually killing Bin Laden.
I think that if you fail do prevent something you are the cause.
Clinton could have killed Bin on more than one occasion but he made the choice not to.


I applaud Obama wanting to kill terrorist. But he doesn’t want to kill them in Iraq?
The war in Iraq is going well. It is going to cause a land slide defeat for the democrats.
They are going to be put in the position of explaining that they were wrong.

Last edited by Cup O Mercury : 08-02-2007 at 09:11 AM.

 
Cup O Mercury is offline
Old 08-02-2007, 09:19 AM   #23
Cup O Mercury
Ownz
 
Cup O Mercury's Avatar
 
Location: Virginia
Posts: 778
Default

I am under the impression that we are kicking ass in Iraq.

Which one of you will flip flop first?!

 
Cup O Mercury is offline
Old 08-02-2007, 10:50 AM   #24
smurfing
Apocalyptic Poster
 
Location: quit netphor til nov 5, 2007.
Posts: 4,365
Default

obama will say anything to seem like the right balance

 
smurfing is offline
Old 08-02-2007, 11:56 AM   #25
ibepawpaw
Pledge
 
ibepawpaw's Avatar
 
Location: Honduras
Posts: 241
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smurfing
obama will say anything to seem like the right balance
Yep, That's what an "Uncle Tom" does. He's smart enough to be dangerous, however his Presidential bid is a waste of tax payers money.

 
ibepawpaw is offline
Old 08-03-2007, 06:06 AM   #26
Starla
*****
 
Starla's Avatar
 
Posts: 15,785
Default

lol maybe Obama should tell Bush to take a look in Pakistan.

he's certainly screwed himself now! Never .......never.......talk about invading countries when running for president. Or is that too old school?

 
Starla is offline
Old 08-03-2007, 06:09 AM   #27
Starla
*****
 
Starla's Avatar
 
Posts: 15,785
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadManMead
Clinton, at the very least, has a decent grasp of foreign policy issues.
Uh No. She doesn't even have a grasp on her husband's dick.

 
Starla is offline
Old 08-03-2007, 06:11 AM   #28
Starla
*****
 
Starla's Avatar
 
Posts: 15,785
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cup O Mercury
I am under the impression that we are kicking ass in Iraq.

Which one of you will flip flop first?!
When will the war mongering fuckers go sign up to fight for this great victory? lol

 
Starla is offline
Old 08-03-2007, 07:44 AM   #29
Cup O Mercury
Ownz
 
Cup O Mercury's Avatar
 
Location: Virginia
Posts: 778
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by To Starla
Uh No. She doesn't even have a grasp on her husband's dick.
You are so witty To Starla. I wish you were on my side

 
Cup O Mercury is offline
Old 08-03-2007, 10:32 AM   #30
jczeroman
inactive user
 
jczeroman's Avatar
 
Location: B1G Country
Posts: 14,442
Default

I see a lot of anti-war types voting for Obama. That really blows my mind. The man is just as pro-war as all of them.

 
jczeroman is offline
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is On
Google


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:54 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Smashing Pumpkins, Alternative Music
& General Discussion Message Board and Forums
www.netphoria.org - Copyright © 1998-2014