• 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!

The US Edges Closer to Invading Pakistan

So someone else does it to us, it's a bad thing, but when we do it to someone else it's okay?

Well, yeah. This isn't a school yard playground where everyone gets to touch the ball or a turn on the swing.

Dropping two atomic bombs were American. To be fair, I guess we could pass around the nukes and make us all equal that way everyone could drop nukes. Of course, preserving a way of life demands the kind of power it takes to make the rules so that's probably not a good idea.

But we aren't like the rest of the world. We wouldn't harbor terrorist organizations that are launching attacks on Canada or Mexico. If we did, we would be equally as depraved and out of control of our own territory as they. As such, we would more or less welcome the consequences of it.

By the way, how can you have the word "tactical" in your name without understanding the idea that it means creating upperhands and advantages? Not chasing your enemies and allowing them to headquarter in order to recover and re-emerge is not sound in terms of tactics. Eventually, that has to stop. The only successful way out of Afghanistan is after we've made this enemy unable to threaten the government.
 
Last edited:
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

Not to mention the ethnic cleansing of various previously mixed neighborhoods being mostly singular relgious based religions and the vast payoff of Sunni tribes with the Awakening councils
 
Well, yeah. This isn't a school yard playground where everyone gets to touch the ball or a turn on the swing.

Neither are we a tribe of cudgel-wielding Neanderthals. We are, ostensibly, a nation of civilized individuals who (by and large) believe in a certain set of shared morals.

One of those shared morals, I have been told, is honesty. Honesty, were it a requirement, would tend to dictate that we shouldn't say bad things about people who do something to us, and then turn around and be all proud of ourselves when we as a nation do it to someone else.

Dropping two atomic bombs were American. To be fair, I guess we could pass around the nukes and make us all equal that way everyone could drop nukes. Of course, preserving a way of life demands the kind of power it takes to make the rules so that's probably not a good idea.

I'll never cease to find it both hilarious and sad that the best you can do when you can't best someone else in an argument is to make fun of them.

But we aren't like the rest of the world. We wouldn't harbor terrorist organizations that are launching attacks on Canada or Mexico.

Not hard to avoid that sort of thing when you're one of the primary targets of such groups.

As such, we would more or less welcome the consequences of it.

Yeah, ha ha, not true.

By the way, how can you have the word "tactical" in your name without understanding the idea that it means creating upperhands and advantages?

Probably about the same way that you can have "Sage" as your title, or the same way you can fail to comprehend hypocrisy and yet serve in a military that purports to have honor as one of its primary values.
 
So someone else does it to us, it's a bad thing, but when we do it to someone else it's okay?


It depends on the motives of the action taken, and the context of the circumstances.

If someone punches me in the face for no apparent reason, that is bad.
If I do the same to someone else, it is bad.

If I punch someone in the face because they attacked me, or they were "winding up" to attack me, that is an entirely different circumstance and moral context.

Unravelling who did what to whom first can be difficult in international relations, if not utterly futile. Sometimes what it comes down to is a matter of "this group is our enemy; they wish to do us harm. Therefore they must be destroyed."

In other words, if someone is going to get the shaft, us or them, I vote "them".
 
Did I perhaps miss where Pakistan attacked us? I thought Pakistan was working with us until we started committing acts of war within their territory. The fact that we don't think they're doing "enough" doesn't authorize us to invade or to kill their people.

What seems to be lost in the wash in discussions like this is that the government of Pakistan is doing a very delicate dance. On the one hand, they're not thrilled about the power held by the militants in outlying areas, but on the other hand the militants do have that power. As such, the government has to balance working with us and our allies with not placing the militants in a political and tactical position to topple the government.

What happened on 9/11 is essentially what we're doing to Pakistan now -- in both cases, innocent parties were targeted and killed in the pursuit of the aggressor's socio-political agenda.

If we're going to label 9/11 as a bad thing, we're obligated to treat similarly any similar behavior in the name of simple honesty.
 
Not to mention the ethnic cleansing of various previously mixed neighborhoods being mostly singular relgious based religions and the vast payoff of Sunni tribes with the Awakening councils

I wouldn't suggest Ethnic cleansing as being contributory or instrumental in the cessation of violence against the coalition. Paying off of Sunni tribes most definite, but is that a bad thing?

Paul
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't suggest Ethnic cleansing as being contributory or instrumental in the cessation of violence against the coalition. Paying off of Sunni tribes most definite, but is that a bad thing?

Paul

Within Bagdad, previously mixed Sunni, Shia neighborhoods which had a large amount of fighting are primarily now Shia, the opportunity for fighting dropped off as the targets were gone. This of course would lead to far less figthing and deaths
 
Within Bagdad, previously mixed Sunni, Shia neighborhoods which had a large amount of fighting are primarily now Shia, the opportunity for fighting dropped off as the targets were gone. This of course would lead to far less figthing and deaths

Opportunities were presented with the removal Saddam. His oppressive regime maintained the 'Sunni' balance of power even though they were numerically inferior. Saddam's removal was always going to introduce instability, which the coalition forces need take their share of blame [obligation under international law].
Tribal, sectarian rivalries never really disappear, just simmer. once the constraints are lifted [Saddam] we witnessed the carnage.

Paul
 
gunner, et al,

It was the drive for the Hegemony that brought us to this point. It was our incompetence that colors our current situation in Iraq.

Opportunities were presented with the removal Saddam. His oppressive regime maintained the 'Sunni' balance of power even though they were numerically inferior. Saddam's removal was always going to introduce instability, which the coalition forces need take their share of blame [obligation under international law].
Tribal, sectarian rivalries never really disappear, just simmer. once the constraints are lifted [Saddam] we witnessed the carnage.
(COMMENT)

The real questions are:
  • What do we do now?
  • What will the consequences be if the Prime Minister is to continue on this path?

In watching the news, you will notice that Prime Minister al-Maliki is taking a three-pronged approach in an attempt to secure his unelected control over Iraq. It is now more than 200 days since the electrion.

  • He is attempting to secure support from neighboring nations:
    • Syria
    • Iran
    • Possibly Egypt
  • He is attempting to secure opposition support:
    • Backing from anti-U.S. Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.
  • He is attempting to secure Regional Support for his leadership.

It will be most interesting to see how the US (politically, diplomatically, and militarily) reacts in the realization that its own creation, Nouri Al Maliki, Prime Minister of Iraq, will (most likely) hold onto his leadership by being supported by the Shi'ite Militia Mahdi Army - and the Iranians (Extraterritorial Operatives), who individually established a deadly insurgency directed against the Multi-National Force (MNF-I) and the Government of Iraq (GOI).

  • Can we continue to support our creation?
  • Did we create another monster that will bite the hand that once fed it?

Most Respectfully,
R
 
Back
Top Bottom