Welcome to PatsFans.com

Nader on Real Time... "Obama heading into the mother of all quaqmires"

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PressCoverage, Sep 28, 2008.

  1. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    i'd like to concede something... as a poster who's long insisted the prize should have always been in Afghanistan and Pakistan (from the start), this is hard to admit... heck, i use the "We will make no distinction" quote by Boy King all the time as a reminder of our double standard in tWoT...

    but, i've long held quiet reservations about that ambition... not in 01, 02, 03, 04, or 05... as i remained enraged over the redeployment away from "the prize" and onto Iraq... but really since 06 have i thought it not smart, no doubt...

    most stems from the fact that I believe bin Laden is long since dead... most stems from the fact that he got away, and escaped into the badlands and expired soon after... the cost/benefit ratio, at this point, of escalating in Afghanistan is too great, especially with our fatigued and overstretched military limping to the finish line in this largely fraudulent "War on Terror"...

    but now that i see Barrack Obama, the likely next president of the United States, openly advocating escalation in that region, i shake my head... i just no longer see the wisdom in that ambition... and i worry that he's hellbent on "making things right" there... chasing a ghost in the process, and fanning much larger flames...

    Nader put it in succint terms on HBO last night. ...

    we're losing in that mountainous country, we have no more fresh troops to reconstitute.... and now we're bankrupt... let it go, declare victory, have a parade in NYC, and buckle down...

    it's time to fix America... get serious about DEFENSE, not OFFENSE... and let the world sort itself out...
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2008
  2. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,307
    Likes Received:
    130
    Ratings:
    +241 / 8 / -26

    Personally have always favored the tactics of the old time Moosad(sp) and CIA, create internal conflict, cause regimes to topple and other methods that create conflict within.. in reality there are so many divisions within all these countries, they could go on for centuries of infighting before they figure out they are fighting themselves..

    It is more efficient, safer and economically sound...
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2008
  3. Siddiqi

    Siddiqi Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Wow, let's fan the flames of hatred between peoples and have them kill each other just as long as American interests are safe everything is great, that's what freedom and liberty are all about. It's garbage like this that makes people hate America, Britain, and Israel and the West in general.
  4. weswelker#83

    weswelker#83 Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,535
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0


    I think ,you misunderstood him , he was describing the method , not cheering it. Big difference ,buddy.
  5. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    A good post PC, it is a tough situation to resolve no doubt. My personal feeling is that we've got to give a troop buildup a try at this point and see if we can reduce attacks within Afghanistan, but in reality I don't see how any amount of troop buildup is going to lead to "success" however we define it without some resolution to the Pakistan problem. As long as AQ and Taliban elements can hide over there without fear of being hunted by US troops how are we going to ever eliminate that threat? One other minor point is that while our military is getting stretched thin, in Afghanistan it shouldn't be a US-only troop buildup. Most of the extra troops ought to be from other NATO countries and even more UN peacekeepers (whatever they are worth), as this, unlike Iraq, was a war that had the approval of the international community, and NATO is on board. That helps a little in any plans for buildups.
  6. MrSparkle

    MrSparkle Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2007
    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    I'm not sure what to think yet. Has any country ever had luck in attacking there. It's such a harsh place. Russia had their asses handed to them there. While we may have success there if we toss more troops in the question is is it worth it. How many more need to die.

    I don't know. I would need to be sold. I don't think it's a good idea to let it revert back to being a haven for terrorists. So I'm torn. I can see your point PC, it's a hard choice. I also think bin laden is dead. It's to bad we don't have proof.

    If we do decide to pull out we must attempt to do so with dignity. Our troops should never be treated like they were when they returned from Nam ever again. This is of the up most importance. I don't like the idea that we may have to pull out but if we can't win, why stay.

    Need to learn more. Good post PC.
  7. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,725
    Likes Received:
    73
    Ratings:
    +154 / 7 / -13


    Why do the muslims keep moving to America England and Europe if they hate them? Not many Americans moving to muslim countries....;)
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2008
  8. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    38,619
    Likes Received:
    369
    Ratings:
    +777 / 6 / -15

    #87 Jersey


    I agree with that but you know the imperialists want to at least have some bases there. Obama changed it a bit as he met with world leaders. If he's elected President I think he needs to pressure the U.N. for a larger international force there.
  9. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,851
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    I've actually never given much creedence to Obama's rhetoric on Pakistan/Afghanistan. It always seemed like clever posturing to me. Kerry's problem was that he came off as too much of a pacifist and was constantly targeted for being someone that would "go to the UN before defending the country" and was seen as weak on Nationally security because of it. Obama has to oppose Iraq, and capitalize on the anger people have at Bush/McCain for that invasion while not becoming susceptible to those that would accuse him of being soft and wanting to "cut and run." So the perfect recipe for that is to focus on "where Al Qaeda actually is" so that he can be seen as fighting the "war on terror" better than Bush did, not just more peacefully. He's not going to invade Pakistan IMO, nor is he going to escalate Afghanistan. It's just empty rhetoric.

    One of the problems I've noticed with Nader and Chomsky (being a linguist) types is that they take political rhetoric at total face value, and ascribe it to actual policy, when in fact a hefty amount of campaign talk is utter nonsense. That being said, this is yet another reason why Nader is the most qualified candidate by far, and it's absolutely unacceptable in a so-called "democracy" that he isn't allowed to debate.
  10. STFarmy

    STFarmy Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    Bingo, that's exactly what it is. It's well known by now that OBL is likely in the tribal region of Pakistan, being protected by the people there. Pakistan's government can't/won't do anything about it, and we can't force them too. Obama saying all those months ago that he would go into Pakistan to get OBL was just posturing, like you said. They're too fragile and are a nuclear power. It's a completely different world when dealing with them. It was clever move by Obama though, it taps into the discontent by all that OBL hasn't been caught. Realistically however, it will be a MUCH more complicated situation. But who knows, maybe he or McCain can figure something out.
  11. Turk

    Turk Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,072
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    Do mothers from these poor countries hurt less when their children are massacred, as opposed to our mothers that grieve after their fallen sons and daughters?

    Safer, and economically sound?
    For whom?

    Planting seeds of hatred, so that neighbors, people who have lived next to each other for generations, can kill each other?

    We should do this, so that we can suck out their natural resources, sell them arms, place puppet leaders to rule them, enjoy our higher standard if living and criticize / make fun of them on message boards?

    Wow!

    Not that we have not been doing this and getting caught, quite often,
    I am surprised that this came from you GJAJ15. Your posts have always been on the humain and progressive side, but this one is very disturbing, I have to say.
  12. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,941
    Likes Received:
    169
    Ratings:
    +381 / 5 / -2

    NATO is in charge over there. the problem is that a lot of the countries who have soldiers there, don't use them in actual combat.

    Obama needs to be careful about his comments regarding Pakistan. No one is going in there anytime soon. The attack on the madrassa a few years ago started a domino effect of sorts that lead to Pakistan pulling back it's cooperation due to public anger, Bhutto's assasination, Mushareffs departure, and the subsequent chaos we see today. Everyone here in this country was being their usual arrogant Americans selves by "demanding" that Pakistan do more, when their open assistance, actually put that country's stability into question. We'll likely be in Afghanistan for a long, long time. What we should concentrate on is modernizing that nation, and bringing somewhere close to the 21st century, so that it's people will themselves reject the radicalism AQ & the Taliban represent. We can't, and won't go into Wazuristan/tribal area's, so eliminating the threat is impossible. we need to police the border, rebuild the nation, and educate the people there. That's going to take a long, long time.
  13. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,941
    Likes Received:
    169
    Ratings:
    +381 / 5 / -2

    I think you're jumping down his throat over something you're misunderstanding. I don't think GAJ meant that he approved of such actions, as much as he was saying that he'd prefer black ops, to open war, if he had to choose between the two.
  14. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    good points...

    but, as to the part i bolded, "well known", or just "widely accepted?" who is saying that he's there, and being protected?

    can anyone here link to proof that the man is alive?... and please don't say the video taped speeches...

    proof of UBL's death is what can save face for Obama... once it's widely accepted that he's long since dead, Obama no longer will feel compelled to even think about touching that powder keg....
  15. STFarmy

    STFarmy Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    You're right, "widely accepted" was the phrase I was looking for but couldn't type for some reason. I agree. It's not a certainty, but that's where most of the experts concur that he probably.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>