• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

The US Edges Closer to Invading Pakistan

Cold Highway

Dispenser of Negativity
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
9,595
Reaction score
2,739
Location
Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The neoconservatives in Washington and their media allies again claim Pakistan is a grave threat to US interests and to Israel. Pakistan must be declawed and dismembered, insist the neocons. Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is reportedly being targeted for seizure or elimination by US Special Forces.

There is also talk in Washington of dividing Afghanistan into Pashtun, Tajik and Uzbek mini-states, as the US has done in Iraq. Could Pakistan be next for this divide and conquer treatment? Little states are easier to rule or intimidate than big ones. Many Pakistanis believe the United States is bent on dismembering their nation. Some polls show Pakistanis now regard the United States as a greater enemy than India.

Now that America is in full mid-term election frenzy, expect more calls for tougher US military action in "AfPak." Already unpopular politicians are terrified of being branded "soft on terrorism" and failing to maximally support US military campaigns. Flag waving replaces sober thought.

Oh joy more war, which means more pick pocketing of our money which is shrinking by the day.

The US Edges Closer to Invading Pakistan by Eric Margolis
 

Arcana XV

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,405
Reaction score
4,811
Location
Geneva, Switzerland and Rochester, NY
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
What do you mean "getting closer"? It's already pretty much under way, unofficially. More and more drones cross the border into Pakistan on a regular basis. This is gonna get really ugly. Not that I'm surprised, mind you. Obama himself, when he was running for President, made it perfectly clear he would have no problem with invading Pakistan if necessary.
 

rathi

Count Smackula
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
7,890
Reaction score
4,730
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
We are not going to invade Pakistan. The war in Afghanistan is irrelevant compared to the danger of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. It would infinitely safer to do something moronic like invade Iran as a supply route rather than attack someone who already has the WMDs.
 

Gray_Fox_86

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
2,327
Reaction score
282
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
There already is a war. But not in the large scale that is being seen in Afghanistan. Only black ops groups, meaning Delta Force and Special Activities Division. And SAD has the control of the drones that do the air strikes when they happen. But more than anything it is just those two groups who are active in Pakistan and have been for sometime now.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
26,131
Reaction score
11,431
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
We are not going to invade Pakistan. The war in Afghanistan is irrelevant compared to the danger of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. It would infinitely safer to do something moronic like invade Iran as a supply route rather than attack someone who already has the WMDs.

You are misunderstanding. It wouldn't be an invasion on the Pakistani government. It would be coordinated enough that we would have "permission" to hit specific regions, which is what we already have to a lesser degree.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
26,131
Reaction score
11,431
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Eric Margolis (the writer) is just one more nobody commentator running off at the mouth with mostly rumors and coffee talk while adding a spicy dramatized twist to give his article color.

Let's look at the titles of his other articles.......
Will There Be a Second Revolution?
Eric Margolis on France's Coffee Party.

Will the US Invade Pakistan?
It could be the empire's final mistake.

A Secret Army of Common Criminals
Eric Margolis on federal death squads.

Is the US Stimulating Nuclear War?
Eric Margolis on Pakistan, India, Kashmir, and the atomic poisoning of the earth.

We Know Only 7 Things About 9/11/01
Meanwhile, questions mount, says Eric Margolis.

Another Mideast Fraud
Four US puppet states "negotiate."

A War of Giants
Eric Margolis on China, India, and another dangerous border thanks to British imperialism.

Will the US Really Leave Iraq?
No. Iraqi oil is coveted by the US's Pax Oiliana.

WikiGate
Eric Margolis on the truth about US killings and imperialism, revealed.

The Ugly Truth About US Wars
It's finally emerging, says Eric Margolis.

Obama Owes Americans the Truth
Why is the Pentagon killing people in Afghanistan?

More Debt!
Eric Margolis on the Obama-bankster order to the world.

The Greatest US War Crime of WWII
Eric Margolis on Yalta.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis-arch.html

The guy is a fruit cake with an obvious axe to grind and he thrives on bitching, drama and conspiracy. He's just one more extremist with a pen.
 
Last edited:

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I stopped reading after the first 4 words. No respectable piece of journalism starts off that way.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
26,131
Reaction score
11,431
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I stopped reading after the first 4 words. No respectable piece of journalism starts off that way.

He's sophomoric and typical of small time "journalists."
 

RoccoR

Banned
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
530
Reaction score
267
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
et al,

I believe that "RATHI" is probably correct here.

We are not going to invade Pakistan. The war in Afghanistan is irrelevant compared to the danger of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. It would infinitely safer to do something moronic like invade Iran as a supply route rather than attack someone who already has the WMDs.
(COMMENT)

While it is true that Pakistan probably isn't the ideal ally, our invasion of Pakistan, based on our demonstrated successful invasions in the recent past, would be a disaster.

The destabilization of the Pakistani Government would all but assure that radical elements would gain control of a ready made arsenal. And that would present unintended consequences that we are not capable of dealing with in that Region of the world. It would also create an unacceptable risk to the other Regional Powers. We should leave well enough alone. Neither our Political or Military Leadership is competent enough to deal with this situation, and our National Security Decision Making Process is completely corrupted from within the IC infrastructure and the branches of government which exercise the process. It is totally unreliable to help the decision makers.

Most Respectfully,
R
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
26,131
Reaction score
11,431
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
et al,

I believe that "RATHI" is probably correct here.

(COMMENT)

While it is true that Pakistan probably isn't the ideal ally, our invasion of Pakistan, based on our demonstrated successful invasions in the recent past, would be a disaster.

The destabilization of the Pakistani Government would all but assure that radical elements would gain control of a ready made arsenal. And that would present unintended consequences that we are not capable of dealing with in that Region of the world. It would also create an unacceptable risk to the other Regional Powers. We should leave well enough alone. Neither our Political or Military Leadership is competent enough to deal with this situation, and our National Security Decision Making Process is completely corrupted from within the IC infrastructure and the branches of government which exercise the process. It is totally unreliable to help the decision makers.

Most Respectfully,
R

Sure, but that's not the case. Nobody is set to "invade" Pakistan. It's not necessary. We only need the capability to attack specific locales as we need to, which is what we do already.
 

TacticalEvilDan

Shankmasta Killa
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
10,443
Reaction score
4,479
Location
Western NY and Geneva, CH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
. . . and if anybody did that to the United States, we'd use words like "war" and "invasion" to describe it.

Many of us considered 9/11 to be an act of war, and that was 19 people taking a shot at three very specific targets.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
26,131
Reaction score
11,431
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
. . . and if anybody did that to the United States, we'd use words like "war" and "invasion" to describe it.

Many of us considered 9/11 to be an act of war, and that was 19 people taking a shot at three very specific targets.

The world's just unfair. It's a good thing America's boss.
 
Last edited:

RoccoR

Banned
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
530
Reaction score
267
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
MSgt, et al,

I agree.

Sure, but that's not the case. Nobody is set to "invade" Pakistan. It's not necessary. We only need the capability to attack specific locales as we need to, which is what we do already.
(COMMENT)

My only concern is that we "might" (jury is still out) be creating more radicals faster then we can neutralize them, protracting the outcome.

The US can only participate in the fight for so long. Eventually, the NATO Allies will gradually start reducing its commitment and we are going to be left the lone gunman on the field. Politically and economically, that is unsustainable.

Most Respectfully,
R
 
Last edited:

gunner

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
6,548
Reaction score
2,875
Location
uk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
MSgt, et al,

I agree.

(COMMENT)

My only concern is that we "might" (jury is still out) be creating more radicals faster then we can neutralize them, protracting the outcome.

The US can only participate in the fight for so long. Eventually, the NATO Allies will gradually start reducing its commitment and we are going to be left the lone gunman on the field. Politically and economically, that is unsustainable.

Most Respectfully,
R

I agree. The trouble when the agenda is driven by Ideology its very difficult to see the light at the end of the tunnel. With the constraints [rightly so] placed on the military, and an enemy as fanatical as we face governments need to act smarter.

Paul
 

gunner

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
6,548
Reaction score
2,875
Location
uk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
. . . and if anybody did that to the United States, we'd use words like "war" and "invasion" to describe it.

Many of us considered 9/11 to be an act of war, and that was 19 people taking a shot at three very specific targets.

Very true. The rhetoric used in the aftermath [of 9/11] fed this thought process. Bush using terms like 'Crusade' and 'Blair' suggesting Good Vs Evil etc framed the conflict, and set out the path there after...

Paul
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
26,131
Reaction score
11,431
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
My only concern is that we "might" (jury is still out) be creating more radicals faster then we can neutralize them, protracting the outcome.

This was always a myth (among others). One the analysts and commentators safely assumed because it was easier than actually understanding the problem. This was the argumnent used for Iraq as well. Very few radicals were created and given that the wave of radicals throughout the region began to come to a halt well before we left Iraq, the evidence is clear. There is no end to the recruitment pool inside the Middle East because the enemy of Allah and the duty of a Muslim was presented in the 1950s and has been a solid piece of propoganda ever since. They only need an excuse (and any will do in a society where the after life represents the only level of success one can achieve) to pick up a weapon. But as Iraq proved, Al-Queda could not sustain their religious duty via the slaughter of fellow Muslims. Iraqis grew tired of the self induced slaughter and even the "created" radicals stopped coming.

The US can only participate in the fight for so long. Eventually, the NATO Allies will gradually start reducing its commitment and we are going to be left the lone gunman on the field. Politically and economically, that is unsustainable.

Most Respectfully,
R

True. And we have seen this before.
 
Last edited:

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
26,131
Reaction score
11,431
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Very true. The rhetoric used in the aftermath [of 9/11] fed this thought process. Bush using terms like 'Crusade' and 'Blair' suggesting Good Vs Evil etc framed the conflict, and set out the path there after...

Paul

"Framed" it for who? No one in the West saw this as some sort of Crusade and our enemies already have their mission framed for themselves.
 

gunner

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
6,548
Reaction score
2,875
Location
uk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This was always a myth (among others). One the analysts and commentators safely assumed because it was easier than actually understanding the problem. This was the argumnent used for Iraq as well. Very few radicals were created and given that the wave of radicals throughout the region began to come to a halt well before we left Iraq, the evidence is clear. There is no end to the recruitment pool inside the Middle East because the enemy of Allah and the duty of a Muslim was presented in the 1950s and has been a solid piece of propoganda ever since. They only need an excuse (and any will do in a society where the after life represents the only level of success one can achieve) to pick up a weapon. But as Iraq proved, Al-Queda could not sustain their religious duty via the slaughter of fellow Muslims. Iraqis grew tired of the self induced slaughter and even the "created" radicals stopped coming.



True. And we have seen this before.

The 'radicals' came to end in Iraq due to the change in strategy. As you are aware, more than most, Petraeus implemented the change that led to the turning off of the 'radical hose pipe'. That is not to suggest we solved 'the problem' just moved the fight.
Iraq is still precarious, hopefully with time, and minimal interference [very unlikely] we may see a semblance of order.

Paul
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
26,131
Reaction score
11,431
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The 'radicals' came to end in Iraq due to the change in strategy. As you are aware, more than most, Petraeus implemented the change that led to the turning off of the 'radical hose pipe'. That is not to suggest we solved 'the problem' just moved the fight.
Iraq is still precarious, hopefully with time, and minimal interference [very unlikely] we may see a semblance of order.

Paul

The point is that we do not and have not ever "created" radicals like the myth suggests. The supporters of the myth never understood the nature of the enemy. Radicals no longer had a base of support with the Sunni turning on Al-Queda. They stopped coming. This stopped happening before the Surge. But they did not cease to exist. They are still throughout the region. The Surge dealt with the Al-Queda and Sunni radicals still in the fight. And with the Sunni and the Shia working together to move (a miracle if it lasts), the radicals haven't a base unless they join an organization.

What is going on in Afghanistan is merely tapping into the radical base in Pakistan. They will support the radicals from Afghanistan. And as we fight them and kill a few of these Pakistani supporters, some of them will pick up rifles and join the fight. The argument will be (and apparently is) that we "created" them. But the fact is that they are already in the fight without the rifles. As in Iraq, the more than come to the fight, the better. Weeds kill the grass. It would be easier if the weeds showed up at the porch for a quick mow.
 

gunner

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
6,548
Reaction score
2,875
Location
uk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
"Framed" it for who? No one in the West saw this as some sort of Crusade and our enemies already have their mission framed for themselves.

George Bush termed it a crusade this then framed it in the context desired by the administration. It helps legitimize a course of action, the response to the terrorists aggression.

Paul
 

MKULTRABOY

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
10,621
Reaction score
2,104
Location
In your dreams...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
This type of crap is going to bite us in the ass later during our own decline. This is a human issue, our morals belong on no pedestal and were privileged by a happenstance of geography. Our citizens are spoiled and fed an ideological vocabulary but the worlds analysts and scholars and policymakers view these directly from a geopolitical framework. The US neocons obviously wont be satisfied except for total hegemony in countries they don't understand or know.
 

gunner

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
6,548
Reaction score
2,875
Location
uk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The point is that we do not and have not ever "created" radicals like the myth suggests. The supporters of the myth never understood the nature of the enemy. Radicals no longer had a base of support with the Sunni turning on Al-Queda. They stopped coming. This stopped happening before the Surge. But they did not cease to exist. They are still throughout the region. The Surge dealt with the Al-Queda and Sunni radicals still in the fight. And with the Sunni and the Shia working together to move (a miracle if it lasts), the radicals haven't a base unless they join an organization.

What is going on in Afghanistan is merely tapping into the radical base in Pakistan. They will support the radicals from Afghanistan. And as we fight them and kill a few of these Pakistani supporters, some of them will pick up rifles and join the fight. The argument will be (and apparently is) that we "created" them. But the fact is that they are already in the fight without the rifles. As in Iraq, the more than come to the fight, the better. Weeds kill the grass. It would be easier if the weeds showed up at the porch for a quick mow.

I was under the impression the 'paying off' of radicals was part of the surge action, when i refer to the surge i use it more as a 'generic term', not meaning just the increase in troop levels. Sorry i thought it was a Petraeus initiative.
Radicals need a cause to be able to morph from a passive rhetorical stance into an active participant. Creating conflicts, Iraq and Afghanistan for explanation purposes provide the arena, i accept a place of our choosing. But, that's not to suggest radicals were not radicalised to the point of active rather passive support for their cause.
Conversely, these conflicts have acted as [in the UK at least] an excellent recruiting tool for the armed forces, why is that? for very similar reasons and this links back to how our leaders framed the conflict into ideological terms.


Paul
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
26,131
Reaction score
11,431
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
George Bush termed it a crusade this then framed it in the context desired by the administration. It helps legitimize a course of action, the response to the terrorists aggression.

Paul

Clinton refused this threat. Bush had no choice but to face this threat. And Obama is carrying the torch against this threat. The idea that this is a "crusade" of some ideologically religious agenda is beyond even conspiracists. Despite embassies and American service members being murdered in the 90's, I believe 9/11 "legitimized" our response. A "crusade" in this context merely means a mission of enthusiasm. It's only religious for Muslims who still carry the 13th century torch.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
26,131
Reaction score
11,431
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I was under the impression the 'paying off' of radicals was part of the surge action, when i refer to the surge i use it more as a 'generic term', not meaning just the increase in troop levels. Sorry i thought it was a Petraeus initiative.

This is exactly my point. If they were "radicals' then their souls would not have been for sale and they could not be bought off.

Radicals need a cause to be able to morph from a passive rhetorical stance into an active participant. Creating conflicts, Iraq and Afghanistan for explanation purposes provide the arena, i accept a place of our choosing. But, that's not to suggest radicals were not radicalised to the point of active rather passive support for their cause.
Conversely, these conflicts have acted as [in the UK at least] an excellent recruiting tool for the armed forces, why is that? for very similar reasons and this links back to how our leaders framed the conflict into ideological terms.

Paul

You have a point, but you aren't talking about radicals. You are talking about a flash-in-the-pan enemy convenienced by a battleground against infidels across the border. This will always happen in this civilization full of people who want guarantees into heaven. Of course. when they discover that part of their job is to kill fellow Muslims, they prove not as radical as people label them. The more to the fight the merrier. Let them exhaust themselves and see up close how their fellow Muslim treats other Muslims. Until they face their own identities, they will continue to keep true to the illusions.
 
Top Bottom