- #36
tanker
- 9
- 0
Ivan Seeking said:
Gokul43201 said:
So how come no one's calling Obama out on ordering one, when they most certainly would if Bush was ordering it (possible destruction of property, possible killing of innocents, the usual)?
Ivan Seeking said:It was a rather bold move and it certainly makes a strong statement to launch an attack on his third full day in office.
Gokul43201 said:Ummm...Bush had been in office when a dozen or so of these attacks happened.
Here's the list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_missile_strikes_in_Pakistan
tanker said:So how come no one's calling Obama out on ordering one, when they most certainly would if Bush was ordering it (possible destruction of property, possible killing of innocents, the usual)?
I think Obama is a good man and will do what he considers necessary to defend US interests. What those interests are is a matter of perspective. Obama did and said what he had to in order to get elected, and he'll do what he has to in order to stay in office -- which means, essentially, maintaining the status quo. Unfortunately, his big campaign promise was change. So, as Nader put it, prepare to be disappointed -- unless you think the current state of affairs is basically ok.Ivan Seeking said:As stated in the article linked, it is a continuation of the existing policy - allegedly a backroom agreement between the US and Pakistan.
My opinion? I think I understand how Obama thinks. If he elected to continue these attacks, then I would probably make the same call. But no matter how one feels about it, the Obama haters have lost yet another piece of ammunition - the claim that he's weak. It was a rather bold move and it certainly makes a strong statement to launch an attack on his third full day in office.
tanker said:So how come no one's calling Obama out on ordering one, when they most certainly would if Bush was ordering it (possible destruction of property, possible killing of innocents, the usual)?
1. If you'd read this thread, you will see that so far, there is no knowledge that Obama explicitly ordered anything. As it turns out, this strike was just a continuation of policies put in place by the Bush administration, and Obama met with his National Security team to discuss it only after it had happened.tanker said:So how come no one's calling Obama out on ordering one, when they most certainly would if Bush was ordering it (possible destruction of property, possible killing of innocents, the usual)?
http://www.dawn.com/2009/01/25/top3.htmWASHINGTON, Jan 24: Hours after US missiles killed 22 people in Fata, President Barack Obama convened a meeting of his top national security advisers and endorsed the decision to continue drone strikes into Pakistan.
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.phpI understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.
What's your source for this? Anything other than the Guardian?Alfi said:Boom
the whole house including the children.
Blow it all up and maybe kill one suspected murderer.
What's your country? How do we know that it doesn't happen there?I sure am glad it doesn't happen in my country.
Too my country, it already has with US forces making an oppps and bombing some good guys awhile back.
You can't fight a war with arrestsI don't really agree with bombs vs. people.
You can't arrest suspects with bombs.
BobG said:Has there been some adverse reaction to the numerous strikes in Pakistan conducted in the last couple of years (including the ones Gokul listed)?
For the most part, these strikes have barely made it into the news.
Gokul43201 said:1. If you'd read this thread, you will see that so far, there is no knowledge that Obama explicitly ordered anything. As it turns out, this strike was just a continuation of policies put in place by the Bush administration, and Obama met with his National Security team to discuss it only after it had happened.
http://www.dawn.com/2009/01/25/top3.htm
2. If there was so much "calling out" of similar strikes under Bush, how is it that you were not even aware of the existence of said strikes?
3. If there was a "calling out" of Obama, would you be any more aware of that than you have shown to be of the previous strikes?
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Bush-Ordered-Attacks-in-Pa-by-Dennis-Kucinich-080912-628.htmlCongressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who in October 2002 was the first member of Congress who maintained that Bush was lying to take the country into war, issued the following statement regarding President Bush's authorization of U.S. attacks inside of Pakistan:
"The President is once again violating international law by invading yet another nation which has not attacked the United States. Once again, he places our troops and our reputation at risk. Once again, he creates more enemies for America. Pakistan's objections to the illegal US Predator strikes inside the country's border should be a clear indication of how Pakistan would respond to another illegal attack upon their sovereign nation.
And Obama faced no criticism when he first announced during the campaign that he would (if elected) authorize military strikes inside Pakistan? Are you kidding? Everyone (from Dems to Reps) was attacking him over that.russ_watters said:Regarding criticism of Bush over the issue, no there wasn't that much criticism over this specific issue, but there was some:
On what basis in this instance do you claim knowledge that innocent civilians were attacked? Then, in the general sense, given all warfare brings harm to innocents, what exactly are you recommending? A withdrawal from Afghanistan?Astronuc said:I condemn the policy that allows missiles to be fired into targets containing innocent civilians, particularly women and children. I'm disappointed that Obama would approve of such a policy. I don't care who is president, the policy is morally wrong.
Not exactly. The criticism was more about his public announcement of a specific policy which causes internal problems for Pakistan.Gokul43201 said:And Obama faced no criticism when he first announced during the campaign that he would (if elected) authorize military strikes inside Pakistan? Are you kidding? Everyone (from Dems to Reps) was attacking him over that.
I don't see why it can't be on the table. Why can't it be a considered?what exactly are you recommending? A withdrawal from Afghanistan?
It can be. What would you say are the reasons NATO leadership deems it worth being there? The US President has clearly stated some of his reasons, posted above. Again:Alfi said:I don't see why it can't be on the table. Why can't it be a considered?
A useful discussion has to first deal with that statement.44 said:But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.
It wasn't just about his shooting his mouth off, there was also a bunch of criticism for "attacking your allies".mheslep said:Not exactly. The criticism was more about his public announcement of a specific policy which causes internal problems for Pakistan.
Gokul43201 said:It wasn't just about his shooting his mouth off, there was also a bunch of criticism for "attacking your allies".
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.
chemisttree said:Pakistan is our ally and a real help in the war on terror. Bush's attacks inside Pakistan, and now Obama's, were conducted with the approval of the Pakistan government. Obama was rightly criticized for spouting off that he would attack without approval. He was not simply stating that he would authorize military strikes inside Pakistan.
BobG said:I'm not sure how big a help Pakistan is in the war on terror.
They (and Libya) quickly changed their stance on a lot of things once we invaded Afghanistan. Neither wanted to be the next country invaded.
Pakistan's main contribution to the war on terror has to been to accept money from the US, use it to fortify their border with India, and drag their feet when it comes to Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters in the border region. And, of course, their other contribution has been to only mildly complain about predator strikes in Pakistan.
In spite of their public complaints, they probably have given the US approval for unmanned strikes since they're not in any better position to fight the US than they are the Taliban and Al-Qaeda hiding in the border region - plus we're paying them to be a weak ally.
How sure are you that the current attacks are conducted with the approval of the Pakistan government? Pakistan has been routinely making pleas to the US to stop the attacks. That hardly sounds like they are asking for the US to hit them harder.chemisttree said:Obama was criticized for "attacking your allies" with good reason.
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801
Pakistan is our ally and a real help in the war on terror. Bush's attacks inside Pakistan, and now Obama's, were conducted with the approval of the Pakistan government. Obama was rightly criticized for spouting off that he would attack without approval. He was not simply stating that he would authorize military strikes inside Pakistan.
Pakistan calls on US to end attacks
Asif Ali Zardari, the Pakistani president, has called on Barack Obama, his US counterpart, to end American missile attacks in South Asian nation's tribal border regions with Afghanistan.
Zardari's comments were reported in the local media on Saturday, a day after the first US attacks in Pakistan since Obama's inauguration.
Such strikes against Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters are counterproductive, the private NNI news agency quoted Zardari as saying.
The US has launched dozens of similar attacks in recent months, mostly targeting Taleban and al-Qaeda militants in Pakistan's tribal regions.
Pakistan has repeatedly protested to Washington about the US strikes, with President Asif Ali Zardari saying that he will not tolerate violations of his country's territory.
The New York Times reported Thursday that President Bush authorized U.S. forces to conduct raids against Taliban and al-Qaida strongholds inside Pakistan's border region without the approval of Islamabad. Regional and security experts assess the reports.
Mostly under the umbrella of foreign aid:drankin said:How are we paying them exactly. Not doubting you are correct but I've never known the specifics of how this is carried out.
Including current appropriations, Pakistan will receive about $2.64 billion in direct U.S. assistance for FY2002-FY2005. Almost half of this ($1.13 billion) is security-related aid.
WASHINGTON, Sept 16 (Reuters) - U.S. lawmakers on Tuesday sharply questioned a Bush administration plan to reallocate more than $250 million in military aid to Pakistan to help it pay for F-16 fighter aircraft upgrades designed to go after militants' sanctuaries near the Afghan border.
...
Previously, the Bush administration had planned to use the military grants involved on surveillance planes and Cobra helicopters, said by some critics to be more effective.
The Pakistani government's blanket denials became untenable as evidence mounted of illicit nuclear weapons technology transfers. It opened an investigation into Khan's activities, arguing that even if there had been wrongdoing, it had occurred without the Government of Pakistan's knowledge or approval. But critics noted that virtually all of Khan's overseas travels, to Iran, Libya, North Korea, Niger, Mali, and the Middle East, were on official Pakistan government aircraft which he commandeered at will, given the status he enjoyed in Pakistan. Often, he was accompanied by senior members of the Pakistan nuclear establishment.
...
In early February 2004, the Government of Pakistan reported that Khan had signed a confession indicating that he had provided Iran, Libya, and North Korea with designs and technology to aid in nuclear weapons programs, and said that the government had not been complicit in the proliferation activities.
...
On February 5, 2004, the day after Khan's televised confession, he was pardoned by Pakistani President Musharraf. However, Khan remained under house arrest.
The United States government imposed no sanctions on the Pakistani government following the confession and pardon. U.S. government officials said that in the War on Terrorism, it was not their goal to denounce or imprison people but "to get results." ... The U.S. also refrained from applying further direct pressure on Pakistan to disclose more about Khan's activities due to a strategic calculation that such pressure might topple President Musharraf.
...
On July 4th, 2008 [after Musharraf's party lost the general election] he [Khan] in an interview blamed President Musharraf and Pakistan Army for the transfer of nuclear technology, he claimed that Musharraf was aware of all the deals and he was the "Big Boss" for those deals.
Reread, Gokul. I never said that Obama was "never questioned" and I never said that Bush got "all the criticism". Heck, I even said explcitly I didn't think Bush got much criticism. You are reading into my posts something that isn't there.Gokul43201 said:The claim made by tanker, and supported by Russ, was that Bush was getting all the criticism and Obama was never questioned. It was this specific claim that I was addressing. Whether the criticism was justified or not was not directly relevant to that claim.
Reread. I take that back. But I don't recall seeing any Bush criticism in this thread either. I think the point of the OP was simply to take on the oft repeated assertion that O would be too weak to be a good C-in-C.russ_watters said:Reread, Gokul. I never said that Obama was "never questioned" and I never said that Bush got "all the criticism". Heck, I even said explcitly I didn't think Bush got much criticism. You are reading into my posts something that isn't there.
My opinions differ from tanker's slightly, but my point was that in this forum, people are very quick to catch Obamamania and criticize Bush. Just once, I'd like some of you Obamafans to state explicitly that you like this Bush policy, at least to show there is a little bit of objectivity to be had here.
Ivan Seeking said:I think this is about actually fighting the enemy who attacked us. Recall that there was very little resistance to Bush's invasion of Afghanistan. The only criticism that I've heard is that Bush lost focus - the real war on terror was derailed by going into Iraq.
Gokul43201 said:As for my opinion of the policy itself, I actually don't much like it, and would like to see Obama et al give it a rethinking. Specifically, I think the administration needs to set a higher threshold than they appear to have set (from my POV) for when a target (in Pakistan) qualifies for a missile strike. Right now I think the returns are rapidly diminishing when the backlash from the locals is factored in. And I think that, whether or not it was expressed with sincerity, Zardari's objections that the strikes weaken the Pakistani Govt's ability to engage in counter-terror operations are not without merit. I think the current strategy sacrifices long term strategic gains for short term tactical wins (that likely also help to constantly remind folks back home that their President is keeping them safe by killing more bad guys every week).
Gokul43201 said:Twice, in the last 4 years, Pakistan has received F-16s and/or upgrades to F-16 technology. The Bush administration has claimed this will help in the counter-insurgency effort, but everyone knows that's mostly nonsense. Pakistan wants the fighters primarily to try and stay competitive in an arms race against India. And they're asking for more.
I don't think Kucinich manages to catch the news much now, he's otherwise occupied sitting by the House door for http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0902/25/acd.01.html" so he meet and greet w/ Obama when he spoke.russ_watters said:Regarding criticism of Bush over the issue, no there wasn't that much criticism over this specific issue, but there was some: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Bush-Ordered-Attacks-in-Pa-by-Dennis-Kucinich-080912-628.html
I'd be very curious to know what he would have to say today - this statement is only 4 months old.
mgb_phys said:Jet fighters are always a good stocking filler for 3rd world deals.
They look cool and expensive and the airforce of most TPLACs is made up of nephews of the president, especially fighter pilots, so it's a nice direct gift.
Most importantly they are pretty useless in the hands of the next regime - without trained pilots and continuing support and spare parts they rapidly becoming unservicable if the next lot aren't so friendly. Much safer than giving your current friends lots of plastic explosive, land mines and shoulder launched missiles - that might come back to haunt you.