The new pres is no wimp when it comes to the Taliban.  He has stepped up the missile strikes in Pakistan, and has actually expanded the range of targets beyond what the Bush administration had.

The current administration not only targets Islamic militants who make cross-broder raids into Afghanistan, but he is also now targeting Taliban who are mainly just causing trouble in Pakistan.

There's a new sheriff in town and he's packing heat.

Yes, the new President might be opposed to the Iraq war, but he's a hawk on the war in Afghanistan. He wants to take the fight to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban as hard as anybody.

Which is where the fight should have been all along. 

Can we afford to fight the Afghans?  I dunno, ask the Russians!
::)

Which is where the fight should have been all along.

1000% Agreed.

It looks like this might become a war with Pakistan.

^
Ah i was just thinking...another war is exactly what the world needs ::)

Which is where the fight should have been all along. 


You got that right.  We need to hunt down those sumbiches no matter where they are at.

^
Ah i was just thinking...another war is exactly what the world needs ::)


While I don't feel exactly the same way as Lyricboy, it is true that war often stimulates the economy if it's big enough.

WW2 did it for us a while back.

Invading Pakistan might have the same effect.  Granted, it would probably lead to WW3 as well....

While I don't feel exactly the same way as Lyricboy, it is true that war often stimulates the economy if it's big enough.

WW2 did it for us a while back.

Invading Pakistan might have the same effect.  Granted, it would probably lead to WW3 as well....


Yeah. There's a word for that...disgusting 8-P

I'm a pragmatist.  If a country can't control its extremists, sometimes that requires us to intervene.

Iraq wasn't necessary because there was a stable government.  Pakistan is very unstable.  We might have to "fix" that.

I'm a pragmatist.  If a country can't control its extremists, sometimes that requires us to intervene.

Iraq wasn't necessary because there was a stable government.  Pakistan is very unstable.  We might have to "fix" that.


Yep.  Pakistan is undisputedly a base for terror export.  This was NOT the case in Iraq for sure.

I remember during the runup to Iraq, I was in Brazil and the locals were asking me my opinion.  I told them "well I guess somebody must have some good evidence on the Iraqi regime, but if they do it is some sort of secret.  But I will tell you this, after any invasion all hell is going to break loose in a civil war, and we will be stuck in a quagmire."

Iraq diverted resources.  Now perhaps if we had hammered the hell out of Pakistani militants and Afghanis, they MIGHT have moved into Iraq, but that is hypothetical.  We should have snuffed every last one of the miscreants where we KNEW they were first.  Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Side note... my comments about rooting out the Islamic militants have nothing to do with the economy.  Economy or not we need to exterminate the terror orgs, no matter where they are.

Yep.  Pakistan is undisputedly a base for terror export.  This was NOT the case in Iraq for sure.

I remember during the runup to Iraq, I was in Brazil and the locals were asking me my opinion.  I told them "well I guess somebody must have some good evidence on the Iraqi regime, but if they do it is some sort of secret.  But I will tell you this, after any invasion all hell is going to break loose in a civil war, and we will be stuck in a quagmire."

Iraq diverted resources.  Now perhaps if we had hammered the hell out of Pakistani militants and Afghanis, they MIGHT have moved into Iraq, but that is hypothetical.  We should have snuffed every last one of the miscreants where we KNEW they were first.  Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Side note... my comments about rooting out the Islamic militants have nothing to do with the economy.  Economy or not we need to exterminate the terror orgs, no matter where they are.


I know it sounds weird, but I'm actually more supportive of the possibility of war from an economic viewpoint.  The terror groups honestly don't bother me that much.  It's just that we have a much better justification for intervening with Pakistan than we did with Iraq, and the scale of the war would be large enough to benefit our economy rather than just benefit contractors.

Granted, it wouldn't have to be a conventional invasion.  The best case scenario would involve extensive cooperation between the Pakistani government and us, with them allowing our forces to invade the remote regions where the terrorists actually are.  That way, none of the urban areas (where mostly Westernized Pakistanis live) would be harmed.

I doubt that Obama is thinking along these lines.  At least I hope not.  Cooperating with the Pakistanis makes good sense, and resisting the Taliban resurgence, but lets no get carried away.

i never really got this "wimpy" vs. "tough" thing about presidents who do or don't decide to bomb people. what's hard about ordering missile strikes on remote villages in pakistan? what's "wimpy" about refraining from ordering missile strikes, when we've all seen over and over again military actions make presidents more popular, at least in the short run? it seems to me in the current environment, when military strikes are pretty much always seen by the mainstream US media as a good idea, and t.v. audiences in the US seem to find them popular and really enjoy them, the really hard thing is to refine from military strikes even when the people are clamoring for them.

or if a president really wanted to show he had some stones, he could go to war against china or russia. i have to admit to being amused when obama shows his mettle by attacking the poorest country on the planet (afghanistan), or when bush acted all tough invading a country (iraq) that had languished under sanctions for 12 years, or bush sr. boldly attacked panama or reagan the elite troops of grenada, or thatcher taking on argentina... it's ridiculous to pretend there's anything tough about that. particularly when you're not even the one fighting.

I'm not too sure how we should deal with Afghanistan. I am not what you would call Hawk-I am more of a Dove. However, I believe that the U.S. was justified going into Afghanistan in 2001 to hunt down "been Forgotten". We (the U.S.) could have gotten him-taken the head off the snake called Al-Qaeda and it would have been all said and done. But, as everyone knows, it didn't work that way because of the incompetence of the Bush Administration decided that Iraq would be more fun to invade than getting the man who master-minded killing over 3000 Americans.

Now, the Afghanistan campaign is a mess. I don't think we can get bin Laden without going into Pakistan and by doing so, will start a bunch of s**t with Pakistan which we really don't need. And another thing to take into consideration is that Pakistan has nukes and I'm not too sure if they care or not to use them. And one thing the Obama Administration needs to set (which the Bush Administration didn't) and that is EXACTLY what the objective(s) is/are for Afghanistan. It is a very tricky situation. Do we walk away? I don't know. But, I do know that as long as we are in Afghanistan, we are still going to be viewed as invaders by the Muslim world who don't trust us now and may join forces with Al-Qaeda.



Cat

I'm a pragmatist.  If a country can't control its extremists, sometimes that requires us to intervene.

So when do you propose invading Israel, Palestine.. oh yes, and the US?  That's not pragmatism, it's closer to imperialism.

There is nothing the US can do from a military perspective to "deal with" extremism in Pakistan, with the possible exception of nuking the whole place... and I'm not sure that would be considered politically acceptable, even if Bush were still in power.

One thing they could try is talking to the Pakistan security services/government before launching attacks into Pakistan - then at least they'd be able to get the proof of collaboration with the Islamists that has often been mooted as the reason for not coordinating with them.  As it is, what the US is doing in launching its attacks is turning public opinion overwhelmingly against them, and playing right into the hands of the destabilizing influences there.


Iraq wasn't necessary because there was a stable government.  Pakistan is very unstable.  We might have to "fix" that.

Iraq had a stable government - how well "fixed" is it now?  You reckon Pakistan would work any better?  Dream on...