View Poll Results: Per the question in the thread

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, and I supported Afghanistan

    12 27.27%
  • Yes, and I supported Iraq

    0 0%
  • Yes, and I supported both

    10 22.73%
  • Yes, and I supported neither

    1 2.27%
  • No, and I supported Afghanistan

    4 9.09%
  • No, and I supported Iraq

    1 2.27%
  • No, and I supported both

    5 11.36%
  • No, and I suppported neither

    5 11.36%
  • Undecided, leaning towards yes

    3 6.82%
  • Undecided, leaning towards no

    3 6.82%
Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 101

Thread: Attack within Pakistan

  1. #11
    Educator
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Last Seen
    12-18-11 @ 04:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    949

    Re: Attack within Pakistan

    I would support President Obama if he orders a strike on Pakistan. Our original goal, when invading Afghanistan, was to wipe out the Taliban...a group responsible for the events of 9/11.

    Pakistan's government is in serious trouble, and the country is in near total anarchy. The current govt. is either unable or unwilling to intervene within their own borders to oust the Taliban, and now the Taliban is only 60 miles from the Pakistani capital city.

    If the current govt. (such as it is) collapses into anarchy, their nuclear missle forces are at the mercy of the Taliban or other terrorist groups. It is unclear whether the Pakistani military can stop a takeover by a well-armed terrorist group, and the subsequent capture of the country's nuclear forces.

    It would certainly be dire indeed if this were to happen. I have no doubts that the Taliban, Al Queda, or other terrorist groups would use these WMDs to further their own crazed, fanatical goals.

    The U.S. may need to intervene militarily to keep this from taking place.
    It matters not how strait the gate,
    How charged with punishments the scroll,
    I am the master of my fate:
    I am the captain of my soul.

  2. #12
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,422
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Attack within Pakistan

    I remember during the debates, when Obama was asked about crossing the border into Pakistan to fight the Taliban, and I was suprised that he essentially answered yes, in an unequivocal manner. I supported both Iraq and Afghanistan, and would support this as well so long as it gets carried out properly. Just lobbing some bombs and doing some flyover airstrikes isn't going to be enough. It will take a serious concentrated effort, with boots on the ground, to make any progress against the Taliban and retain or create any stability for Pakistan.

    It would help, if the international community had the stones to contribute some boots for the cause, but I seriously doubt both their capabilites and their desire at this point.
    "Loyalty only matters when there's a hundred reasons not to be-" Gen. Mattis

  3. #13
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 06:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Attack within Pakistan

    Quote Originally Posted by WI Crippler View Post
    It would help, if the international community had the stones to contribute some boots for the cause, but I seriously doubt both their capabilites and their desire at this point.
    If Dear Leader is going to send troops into Pakistan to take on the Taliban, he'd better get Gitmo ramped back up and find a way to bless waterboarding, because the interrogators will be working overtime.

  4. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Whitewater, CO
    Last Seen
    04-05-16 @ 04:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,260
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Attack within Pakistan

    Quote Originally Posted by new coup for you View Post
    I've often thought that some kind of collapse might actually be useful, because it would the government to take full action in one swift blow.

    I don't think that Pakistan is just a place where a local populace is being radicalized, I think it's also a place where significant Al Qaeda members from around the globe are able to take refuge.

    Now, I'm treading closely to Bush "all those who harbor terrorists" rhetoric, but I think there's a certain utility in the idea. It's not just about serving potential terrorist harboring countries a threat, it's about allowing yourself to take advantage of concentrations of terrorists. A Taliban government in Pakistan would mean for a real target to bomb.

    I think the US has proved that it's pretty good at destroying nations, it's just poor at fighting insurgencies.

    So what would a Taliban government in Pakistan pose to use other then an easy target? It'd make them come out hills and out into the open, where we can bomb them.
    The Taliban cannot be allowed to have access to nuclear weapons. For this reason, securing Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and preventing the Taliban from getting anywhere near them is ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL.

    The current government of Pakistan is almost completely worthless. They allowed the Taliban to gain a foothold on their territory. As a result, I do not believe they can be trusted to deal with the Taliban. In fact, I believe the Taliban have a fair amount of influence over the current government of Pakistan. This is an issue that needs to be corrected.

    Unfortunately for the Taliban, they are living in the 1600s. It's time for their backwards theocratic asses to get current.

  5. #15
    R.I.P. Léo
    bub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    05-17-12 @ 01:54 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,649

    Re: Attack within Pakistan

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Simple question.

    Would you approve of an attack ordered by President Obama against the Taliban within Pakistan with or without the consent of the Pakistani government? Why?

    I would ask those that if you post in this thread that you at least spent the majority of your post explaining YOUR position before attacking anyone elses position. If you don't intent to give your own views on this action and your own stance on it and simply wish to attack others for potentially being hypocritical on EITHER side, please don't participate. Its unfair to everyone debating if you're going to attack them for their views without giving your own to begin with.

    This is spurred from the fact Clinton recently said they were a mortal danger.
    No. That would create a new quagmire. And a dangerous one since they got nukes.

    Viet-Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan (both the Russian & the NATO attacks), and Palestine have shown that conventional armies (such as the US one) can not fight against guerillas, even if you drop thousands of tons of napalm.

    It's not just a question of materially destroying them (which is impossible: Bin Laden has never been caught, there are still Hamas terrorists even after Israe carpet-bombed Gaza, and a suicide bomber killed 55 people in Iraq today in spite of the presence of 150,000 US soldiers and mercenaries), it's also a question of gaining support from the civilians and convincing them that extremism is bad.

    That is impossible too if you use a conventional army. The main result of the invasions of Afghanistan & Iraq have been to attract extremist terrorists from other countries. Same for Palestine: once you drop a bomb, you kill innocents, and their family join AQ/Hamas/Hezbollah on the spot.


    Like it or not, the Talibans benefit from huge local support over there. We've been killing them for 7 years and they're still more present than ever. The only way to influence them is to support moderates, convince the population not to support them, and negociate with them so that they stay in their mountains.
    Last edited by bub; 04-24-09 at 09:20 AM.

  6. #16
    Another day in paradise..
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 02:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    67,947

    Re: Attack within Pakistan

    Quote Originally Posted by WI Crippler View Post
    I remember during the debates, when Obama was asked about crossing the border into Pakistan to fight the Taliban, and I was suprised that he essentially answered yes, in an unequivocal manner. I supported both Iraq and Afghanistan, and would support this as well so long as it gets carried out properly. Just lobbing some bombs and doing some flyover airstrikes isn't going to be enough. It will take a serious concentrated effort, with boots on the ground, to make any progress against the Taliban and retain or create any stability for Pakistan.

    It would help, if the international community had the stones to contribute some boots for the cause, but I seriously doubt both their capabilites and their desire at this point.



    exactly.........


    Matthew 10:34
    Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

  7. #17
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 10:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Attack within Pakistan

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Simple question.

    Would you approve of an attack ordered by President Obama against the Taliban within Pakistan with or without the consent of the Pakistani government? Why?
    Actually Zyphlin, it's not a simple question. If the attack was a routine border missile strike as those which have occurred under Bush and Obama, sure I'd be okay with that.

    However, if the attack was something much larger, an attack that threatened the stability of the government by empowering the crazies we're trying to stop and could quickly lead to country collapse, I'd say no.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  8. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Between Hollywood and Compton.
    Last Seen
    11-24-09 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    5,497

    Re: Attack within Pakistan

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    The Taliban is who I hold responsable for 9/11 and it appears they've not truly been "beaten" but relocated.
    As I understand it, much of the Taliban was displeased with OBL and Al Qaeda's provocative acts. It's when the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and Sadr's Shiite militia are all conflated into one jumbled mess by uninformed (not claiming you're uninformed) "analysts" with no regard for critical distinctions between these groups that we lack the ability to comprehend intelligent analysis.

  9. #19
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 10:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Attack within Pakistan

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    As I understand it, much of the Taliban was displeased with OBL and Al Qaeda's provocative acts. It's when the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and Sadr's Shiite militia are all conflated into one jumbled mess by uninformed (not claiming you're uninformed) "analysts" with no regard for critical distinctions between these groups that we lack the ability to comprehend intelligent analysis.
    Pretty much. If there was one lesson to be learned from the Cold War, it's that our "Communist" enemies were not a monolithic block. That each had their own agendas, own desires and own path that often conflicted with each other. Treating them all as the same removed the ability to divide and conquer. Luckily some people at the Pentagon and on the ground realize this and have been actively playing off the divisions between groups to suppress terrorists. Indonesia and the Philippines are good examples of where US and local forces used specific desires by groups to cleave them away from the greater terrorist organization and turn them either peaceful or into allies. Iraq is another.

    It would be a damn shame for people to forget a lesson that took 50 years to learn.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  10. #20
    Familiaist


    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Last Seen
    09-26-12 @ 12:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    7,470

    Re: Attack within Pakistan

    I supported the fight in Afghanistan, and I'll support a fight in Pakistan.

    People drawing parallels between the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war are unbelievably naive.
    "I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive al-Qa'ida." -- Lord Hoffmann

Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •