Jump to content

Obama vows to hunt down terrorists in Pakistan


theguyinallblue

Recommended Posts

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070801/ap_on_el_pr/obama_terrorism Obama vows to hunt down terrorists By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists even without local permission if warranted — an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive. The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid. "Let me make this clear," Obama said in a speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "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-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will." Obama's speech comes the week after his rivalry with New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton erupted into a public fight over their diplomatic intentions. Obama said he would be willing to meet leaders of rogue states like Cuba, North Korea and Iran without conditions, an idea that Clinton criticized as irresponsible and naive. Obama responded by using the same words to describe Clinton's vote to authorize the Iraq war and called her "Bush-Cheney lite." Thousands of Taliban fighters are based in Pakistan's vast and jagged mountains, where they can pass into Afghanistan, train for suicide operations and find refuge from local tribesmen. Intelligence experts warn that al-Qaida could be rebuilding here to mount another attack on the United States. Musharraf has been a key ally of Washington in fighting terrorism since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, but has faced accusations from some quarters in Pakistan of being too closely tied to America. The Bush administration has supported Musharraf and stressed the need to cooperate with Pakistan, but lately administration officials have suggested the possibility of military strikes to deal with al-Qaida and its leader, Osama bin Laden. Analysts say an invasion could risk destabilizing Pakistan, breeding more militancy and undermining Musharraf. The Pakistani Foreign Office, protective of its national sovereignty, has warned that U.S. military action would violate international law and be deeply resented. A military invasion could be risky, given Pakistan's hostile terrain and the suspicion of its warrior-minded tribesmen against uninvited outsiders. Congress passed legislation Friday that would tie aid from the United States to Islamabad's efforts to stop al-Qaida and the Taliban from operating in its territory. President Bush has yet to sign it. Obama's speech was a condemnation of President Bush's leadership in the war on terror. He said the focus on Iraq has left Americans in more danger than before Sept. 11, and that Bush has misrepresented the enemy as Iraqis who are fighting a civil war instead of the terrorists responsible for the attacks six years ago. "He confuses our mission," Obama said, then he spread responsibility to lawmakers like Clinton who voted for the invasion. "By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences." Obama said that as commander in chief he would remove troops from Iraq and putting them "on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan." He said he would send at least two more brigades to Afghanistan and increase nonmilitary aid to the country by $1 billion. He also said he would create a three-year, $5 billion program to share intelligence with allies worldwide to take out terrorist networks from Indonesia to Africa.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest dada_rocks

Ye sab hurki to deni hi parti hai.. btw if I am asked to import one thing from american democracy I will go for this tradition of intra-and inter party live debate among prospective candidates... Tradition of nomination by influential family in India must go.. people should get to know who their PM is going to be before voting..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will go for this tradition of intra-and inter party live debate among prospective candidates...
It is unfeasable in a multi-party state, it is far more logistically viable in a bipartisan nation or a unipartisan nation.
Tradition of nomination by influential family in India must go..
You mean it is any different in Canada, America, Britain,etc etc ? LOL ! your head is deeper in the sand than i thought.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If America invades Pakiland, ... ... ... they (the Americans) will GET THEIR ASSES WAXED. Pakistan has a very organized military (they run the whole country for God's sake), nukes, and Taliban-like gusto. America purposefully invades non entities like South Vietnam, Grenada, and Iraq precisely because those places DON'T HAVE ESTABLISHED armed forces. A fight against a conventional military will see the end of the American empire. The U.S. has more money (for now), more technology, ... ... but look how poor insurgents are creating quicksand for the world's superpower in an impoverished country like Iraq. The modern way to kill of nations is through international institutions, disease, banking and finance. If it comes down to shoot-em-up warfare, ... ... ... just say bye bye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pakiland should just turn over the lands that are Pashtun-dominated over to Afghanistan. If they truly cannot control that western portion of the country, ... ... why bother? Just gift it to Afghanistan--they're almost all Pashtun anyway. Problem solved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest dada_rocks
It is unfeasable in a multi-party state, it is far more logistically viable in a bipartisan nation or a unipartisan nation. You mean it is any different in Canada, America, Britain,etc etc ? LOL ! your head is deeper in the sand than i thought.
every state can do debate .. jahan chah wahan rah.. Why do u keep underlining ur idiocy man..how many of the dems hopeful come from nominated family.. I know u bloody hate america but that doesn't mean u crap on everything.... who has nominated obama one of the front runner.. akal se paidal.. btw did u find that verse number yet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest dada_rocks

don't worry pakista for all their psuuring are big fattu they will fall in line over one threatening call.. usa will bomb pakistan will work hard to explain it to their netizens

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how many of the dems hopeful come from nominated family.
Every single one of them come from well established millionaire families.
every state can do debate
Don't try lecturing an engineer on logistics. It is one thing arranging for half a dozen candidates each from two parties- it is an entirely different ballgame arranging for half a dozen candidates each from two dozen parties for a 'debate'. But given your limited knowledge and experience, it is no surprise that you do not undestand the issue of logistics very well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If America invades Pakiland, ... ... ... they (the Americans) will GET THEIR ASSES WAXED. Pakistan has a very organized military (they run the whole country for God's sake), nukes, and Taliban-like gusto. America purposefully invades non entities like South Vietnam, Grenada, and Iraq precisely because those places DON'T HAVE ESTABLISHED armed forces. A fight against a conventional military will see the end of the American empire. The U.S. has more money (for now), more technology, ... ... but look how poor insurgents are creating quicksand for the world's superpower in an impoverished country like Iraq. The modern way to kill of nations is through international institutions, disease, banking and finance. If it comes down to shoot-em-up warfare, ... ... ... just say bye bye.
you do realize that they are in Iraq to created a state with a government that is pro united states, and thereby permits them first dibs at the massive oil resources which rival Saudi Arabia, Iran and the lot. If they were to attack Pakistan, which is unlikely considering that China would see it as a threat (it uses Pakistan as a counterbalance against India), they wont be as discriminating as they are now (which is not saying much). Trust me, the American army we see in Iraq is nothing but 18 and 19 year old school jocks who did not receive a football scholarship or make it to anything save for community colleges. The Delta, the Marines are a whole different animal. Better trained, sturdier and psychologically stronger; these are an incredible fighting unit. And then again, if they had to clean the North West Provinces, which is where they would most likely attack, they would use predator drones and high altitude bombers for a unique one two punch of first precision bombing (for the media to show their discretion and maturity) followed by 500 lb bunker busters for the fun of it. I really think that any global power that seems to take american military might for granted from the small perspective they feel they gain from Iraq are sadly mistaken. This is the military power that took down the Nazis, the Japanese, and the North Koreans in less than a decade during which they evolved from an outdated amry into a massive military industrial complex with no global rival and heralded technologies decades ahead of its time. Trust me, if the united states wanted to attack Pakistan, there is not a dime's worth of **** the pakis could do to them. And the same is applicable to India. In fact in all out war, the americans are still top notch.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All rhetoric. No way US is gonna invade Pakistan on a full scale. Even if they do attempt to destroy terrorist camps' date=' it'll most probably be covert operations with the help of the Secret Service.[/quote'] the Secret Service does not do covert missions. That is the job of the CIA and the Delta Force, or other special forces. The Secret Service only manages the treasury and the security of legislative and executive body members such as senators, congressmen, president etc etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Obama if elected will hunt down terrorists in Pukistan....if he does so I will salute him. Rememeber, we have been sufferring from Kashmiri Jehadis infiltrating fromPaki side much before 9/11 happened...and then whole world including Amreeka use to neglect our concern about growing terrorism in Puki land. And still they think Pukes as their major-Non-Nato-ally and all those non-senses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest dada_rocks
Every single one of them come from well established millionaire families. Don't try lecturing an engineer on logistics. It is one thing arranging for half a dozen candidates each from two parties- it is an entirely different ballgame arranging for half a dozen candidates each from two dozen parties for a 'debate'. But given your limited knowledge and experience, it is no surprise that you do not undestand the issue of logistics very well.
Millionaires doesn't mean they are nominated idiot.. Clinton was not millianire by berth neither was obama what the hell are u talking about even if they are millinaires that clb is not exclusivist anyone can join that club in USA.. Man u should stop brandishing that engg badge on me it's not even funny anymore .u do know where I did my engg u won't get a look in. Rahi logistics idea then i have seen how informed u were while claiming WTC was controlled demolition.. ..rahne do tum.. debate karo don't hide behind degrees because in that race u have no chance in hell.. not every candiate has to take part; for instance Bihar: Nitish Kumar , lalu yadav or rabri yadav, Sushil Modi, Sadnand Singh,CPIML chief .. it hardly goes beyond half dozen.. Now compare how many candidates were debating in latest democratic debate it was more than half a dozen for sure..
Link to comment
Share on other sites

( Once Again .. heres how you and most of our babus thinking works) If Our Own people Then Treat Like craap Else bend over ... and then you accuse me of siding with Amreeka ... :dance:
Weird Logic ! Please drop that fake nationalism which you pretend to hold on your sleeve.With due respect, It is sounding more like a broken old record. Their is nobody here I can think of who support these "haramis" . On the contrary , I have been on record demanding Uniform civil code and ban on draconian Sharia. Now , pray tell me who has his head buried in the sand !:yay:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And so are your rants that range from Tippu = Great to most Islamic rulers were not fanatics yada yada yada .... Good. Then you and I are on the same side :D It will become apparant if you could care to continue the many discussions that you abandon when it gets uncomfortable .... :giggle:
Yeah Right ! Links provided by KS LAL and Ali Sina are gospel truth . Rant on !:hysterical: And NO , I am not on your side because it is not the righteous one ! If it makes your ego feel any better , I declare you winner of all debates here ! Happy ??
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest dada_rocks
Yeah Right ! US is blameless after all they are looking after their own self interest when arming these haramis in the hood.:haha:
Oye kitani baar bataunag u don't worry noone is getting armed. Uncle sam will control all the buttons only seminal event in that episode is Saudi Arabia poorer by 20 B USA richer by 20 B..enjoy khali pili ka tension mat lo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...