Did Obama just GIVE US A 3RD WAR - now in Pakistan? Did he mention this when he was running? nt

[grahamhgreen]

[Cali_Democrat]

1. It's the same war

It just crosses the border.

[grahamhgreen]

11. What's the name of it? nt

[Echo In Light]

14. I'm unsure. We don't watch much M$M, so I haven't caught the theme music, replete w/cool graphics

[guitar man]

19. New Cambodia?

:crazy:

[Cant trust em]

2. It's the same war.

[boston bean]

3. as a matter of fact he did and hillary roasted him for it.

[berni_mccoy]

8. And he stood by it, even though, she did.

[berni_mccoy]

4. Yes, he explicitly mentioned striking at Al'Qaida in Pakistan

I remember it caused quite a firestorm at the time, but he stood by his statement.

[tekisui]

9. Yep. He said if Pakistan was unwilling or unable, he would.

[Arctic Dave]

5. Where have you been, he escalated the use of Predator strikes in Pakistan a long time ago.

[tekisui]

6. The AfPak War.

It has been going on, and he has already expanded it with the drone attacks.

[MNDemNY]

7. He certainly made the case for an invasion of Pakistan, more so than he did for escalating ...

Afghanistan.

[Ozymanithrax]

10. No he did not.

There is no authorization to use force i Pakistan.

Pakistan has not asked us to intervene.

The "escalation" in no way authorizes the military to put large numbers of combatants into Pakistan to hunt Bin Laden.

There is not third war, only concern that we support Pakistan's attempts to defeat their own insurgency that supported and abetted the Mumbai terrorist attacks and has been behind numerous assassinations and attempted assassinations.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

Cambodia redux. Maybe we'll destroy the Ho Chi Minh trail this time.

[BeFree]

12. Yes, he did

But I worked real hard to ignore it and hoped it would go away.

Yep. I'm a neo-sheeple. How embarrassing to admit it now, but it's true.

[Subdivisions]

13. The best route for the TAP happens to run through Baluchistan to the

Port of Gwadar.

Al Qaeda, neverminding it's a manufactured boogie-man, is no longer in Afghanistan and are now, allegedly, in Pakistan. So, if the mission is to hunt down and dismantle Al Qaeda, as Obama has said, then the addition of 30,000 troops to Afghanistan portends one of two things: 1) Either a large-scale expedition into Pakistan - with the blessing and/or cooperation of Pakistan's government/military; or 2) an invastion of Pakistan by U.S. and allied forces. Since we're already paying the Taliban to stay on the sidelines, there remains no other reason to be in Afghanistan. How many ground troops did we invade Iraq with? How many ground troops will 30,000 bring our Afghan contigent to? Is this about Al Qaeda, or is this about resources?

[catbyte]

15. That's a big reason why Michael Smerconish ditched McCain

and supported Obama because he argued that Pakistan is where the action is and McCain was fixated on Iraq and "the surge". I remember seeing him on "Hardball". I almost changed the channel because I just can't stand to listen to any of those creeps (RW radio drones), but he wasn't too bad. Obama has ALWAYS viewed Pakistan as a big danger point. I wish he'd do something about the Saudis, though--they're just as culpable for 9/11 if you ask me...

Diane

Anishnabe in MI

[grahamhgreen]

17. The Saudis are the real issue. They are bankrolling all the wackos. Why we don't seize assets is

curious.

Why we attacked Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia is also suspicious.

Instead, the Saudi's have profited from the wars.

[grahamhgreen]

16. 3 wars now, unreal. This is something for the "he said he would do it" crowd. Great info, thanks!nt

[opihimoimoi]

18. Its the SAME WAR Bush Started but got greedy on us.....Give Bush Shit, not blame Obama

[grahamhgreen]

21. "We've always been at war in Pakistan!", I guess....

"In the event, that alliance ends, and Oceania, now allied with Eurasia, fights Eastasia, a change occurred during the Hate Week dedicated to creating patriotic fervour for the Party's perpetual war. The public are blind to the change; in mid-sentence, an orator changes the name of the enemy, from "Eurasia" to "Eastasia", without pause; when the public are enraged at noticing that the wrong flags and posters are displayed, they tear them down — thus the origin of the idiom "We've always been at war with Eastasia"; later, the Party claims to have captured Africa.

"The book" further explains that the true purpose of the unwinnable, perpetual war is to consume human labour and commodities, hence the economy of a super-state cannot support economic equality (a high standard of life) for every citizen."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

[Zen Democrat]

20. I think Pakistan is our ally in THE war in the border regions of Af-Pak. nt