• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Attack within Pakistan

Per the question in the thread


  • Total voters
    32

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,432
Reaction score
35,276
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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.
 
For myself, I'd be leaning towards yes. I'd prefer Pakistani support for this to happen though and would be requiring a great deal of intelligence data to do it without their consent. I'm curious on Clinton's "Mortal Danger" statement and wonder how much of an over exaggeration it is. Primarily the reason I'd support this is because, government wise, The Taliban is who I hold responsable for 9/11 and it appears they've not truly been "beaten" but relocated.

This said, I'll admit I am rather a novice in regards to this entire situation and need to read up on a great deal more before I make a dedicated answer. Right now I'm clearly in the undecided category, with a slight lean to "yes". I supported Afghanistan. I was undecided though leaning towards supporting going into Iraq though not for the same order of importance in regards to the reasons Bush gave and despite thinking it was handled horrendously.
 
All the world needs is some backward arse mullah wrapped up in a comforter with his baby blanket wrapped around his head to be at the control of some nuclear device.

You think they were having fun playing polo with a human head in a sack? You ain't seen nothin' yet!

Simply put, the Taliban has got to go. There is no place for their ideology in a civilized world. They are too dangerous to tolerate.

But it shouldn't be the US's job alone to eradicate their existance. It is the duty of the civilized world.
 
For myself, I'd be leaning towards yes. I'd prefer Pakistani support for this to happen though and would be requiring a great deal of intelligence data to do it without their consent

I'm leaning towards yes too. I'm wondering about covert black operations as well.
 
Last edited:
I said no, but I didn't see a choice I really liked. I feel as though we should continue to ask Pakistan to allow us to handle the Taliban within their border. If we pressure them for a while and they still refuse, then I think we should go for it.
 
The only way attacking inside Pakistan works out well is if the Pakistani government is leading the way.

If Pakistan is not on board with the incursion, if they oppose or even fail to endorse the incursion, then the incursion has the double damnation of alienating a necessary ally against the Taliban and weakening the government vis-a-vis the Taliban.

The Pakistani government would not survive long after the incursion, regardless of the outcome. The only real question is which group would stage the successful coup.

As they are still an ally of the US, it behooves us to respect their sovereignty.
 
I say yes and my reasons stem from a while back when the Taliban stated that it would blow up a grade school if they kept teaching little girls. There is no way that a group like this can be allowed to go nuclear or even remain unchecked in their power grabs in Pakistan.

I think we should seek Pakistan's endorsement but with or without it we should strike the Taliban, driving them first out of the Swat Valley.
 
At the present time, absolutely not. The benefit of killing a few Taliban commanders and grunts is nowhere close to the cost of destabilizing nuclear-armed Pakistan.

I don't think most people realize how close Pakistan is to total collapse. The Taliban is about 65 miles outside of Islamabad and getting closer. The United States should do everything it can to prevent a collapse. Anything that further radicalizes the population and destabilizes the country should be scrupulously avoided at this time.

With that said, I think Pakistan probably WILL completely collapse in a matter of weeks or months. When it does, I think the US military should bomb the **** out of every known Taliban stronghold along the Afghan border...and I hope the US military has a damn good contingency plan for a full-blown invasion as well.
 
Last edited:
At the present time, absolutely not. The benefit of killing a few Taliban commanders and grunts is nowhere close to the cost of destabilizing nuclear-armed Pakistan.

I don't think most people realize how close Pakistan is to total collapse. The Taliban is about 65 miles outside of Islamabad and getting closer. The United States should do everything it can to prevent a collapse. Anything that further radicalizes the population and destabilizes the country should be scrupulously avoided at this time.

With that said, I think Pakistan probably WILL completely collapse in a matter of weeks or months. When it does, I think the US military should bomb the **** out of every known Taliban stronghold along the Afghan border...and I hope the US military has a damn good contingency plan for a full-blown invasion as well.

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.
 
First let me say I support our troops.

My second thought is that Osama paid the Taliban to train fighters their,because he was a black sheep to the Saudi's, and they, the Saudi's just gave him money,and told him to go somewhere else,you're making us look bad to the U.S.
The U.S. keeps the Saudi government propped up and in power,which Osama hates.
Afghanistan doesn't have a lot going for it so they took Osama's money to let him train troops there.And it's not like we haven't trained death squads for other country's.Personally, I would have stayed out of Afghanistan and done black op's with special forces and gotten Osama there.All we have done is moved the Taliban out of their country,and into a problem country with nukes,that is destabilized.

My other thought is we should of taken over Saudi Arabia and all of their oil and assets,for 9/11.

Iran, I think their was something deeper going on there,than what Bush was saying,like we backed Saddam for a while till he turned out to be a wild card like Noriega,and remember what happened to his country, Bush Sr.started all that off in both country's.I think they both tried blackmailing Bush Sr.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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.........
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 voted yes i supported both wars and now support to take out the Talaban in Packastan. the war in Afganastan was nessasary due the Talaban suport of Al-Queda. Iraq in big part due to the bumbling of Bush Senior. And we really need to take out the Talaban.
 
government wise, The Taliban is who I hold responsable for 9/11 and it appears they've not truly been "beaten" but relocated.
You should remember the Taliban is a very loose term these days. Only something like 20-40% of those labeled Taliban by the media should actually be considered such. The others have their relations to that organisation certainly but often these aren't even too strong and they are far from the same organisation.
 
I would support an attack if it gained UN approval, otherwise any such attack would appear to be more American imperialism and/or the U.S. simply cleaning up the mess of a former ally. Removing the Taliban from Pakistan must have international precedent otherwise it won't have lasting effects.

Besides, the U.S. budget is stretched thin as it is.
 
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.

Unfortunately ... most of the EU has no balls. The British do but I doubt their going to contribute anymore than they already have to the cause in that part of the world!
 
If you follow a particular decrepit road that runs past Islamabad airport, you will eventually come to a guardhouse. Beyond lies the Chakala Cantonment which was established by the colonial Brits as a military base. Located in one of the motel-like single story buildings inside is the Office for Strategic Plans. The United States initially funded this project to the tune of $100 million dollars. The OSP has custodianship of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. It is responsible for tracking, securing, and safeguarding Pakistan's nuclear warheads. Khalid Kidwai heads the OSP which also keeps track of the 70,000 Pakistanis involved in the nuclear complex.

Pakistan refuses to divulge how many warheads are available, and the storage locations. Kidwai infers that the warheads are safe but disbursed. He also maintains that the warheads are secured with PALs (permissive action links) much like US nuclear warheads. With the PAL system, a code must be entered to activate the weapon. You are only allowed x number of tries to enter the correct code. One failed attempt too many and the warhead will explode (internal conventional explosives) like an IED.

In short, the US has no idea where Pakistan's nukes are located. The only chance to avert disaster would be to raid the OSP and remove everything to a safe location for analysis. But I highly suspect the Pakistanis have already considered this possibility and have set in place preemptive safeguards.

When Islamabad falls, the race to capture Chakala and its secrets intact will be on.
 
Back
Top Bottom