http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081009/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan

So if it's true...lets see....the US started the problems...now we're attacking another sovereign country in the name of the "War on Terror." Any bets on how quickly this will get out of control?

The fun part? Neither US presidential candidate sounds opposed to actions in Pakistan, which means that regardless of the results in November/January these actions won't stop, and we'll just keep racing towards that cliff.

I suspect that Obama will be more cautious then Bush. I predict he will at least try to get Pakistan to cooperate so we don't have to do this stuff.

Ask Turkey about their adventures in Kurdistan. They know its really northern Iraq but all they care about is that their enemy is using an uncontrolled border as something to hide behind and the actual custodian of that border is doing nothing to prevent the perceived enemy from launching cross border attacks against them. If the "soveriegn nation" can't keep their own people in check from crossing the "border" to conduct attacks, then honestly who is to say that its wrong to go into what is basically an uncontrolled no mans land and reminding these folks that they need to stay on their side of the fence? If your nieghbors dog comes into your yard and bites your kid because your nieghbor is too much of a slack ass and can't keep it on a leash, fenced etc then perhaps its not unreasonable for you to shoot it dead...from YOUR property. Which is what we did. Warzones are just that. You invade and take it over from your enemies. Its up to the victor as to whether it gets returned or not and thus any turf we fire missles from in Afghanistan is OURS until we give it back. Its our side of the fence. The nieghbors dog bit our kid. Thus we fuck em up. Case closed.

The Taliban sympathic tribes are the dog. The border is that fence Pakistan doesn't have the ability to control, or choose not to. Maybe they should have been shooting at the Taliban all along and not our Kiawa helicopters. Perhaps they should have shot at the training camps they harbor in their borders as well too if they are that much on their game. All it takes is a change of who is in charge to make a friend act like an enemy or for a nation's true color to be revealed. If they want to back their Taliban friends or perhaps hide behind indifference then whatever they have coming is rooted in their own political and military decision making process.

Pakistan is a mess. You would think they would not want to back the wrong team. They have a large cache of nukes. If they go rogue the rest of the world will not stand for it and they WILL be invaded to keep that stockpile safe and out of the hands of extremists.

Neighbor's dog bites my kid because he won't keep it chained, I am sticking the missile up his ass.


But, I think it has been made clear fairly consistently over the last 5-6 years, that if we know with good intelligence of the location of terrorists, we will go after them if the country they are in will not do so. Terrorists have shown that there is no country that is exempt from their attacks, so any military force should be free to go after them wherever they are, until they are all dead or imprisoned (meaning forever).

And, on the topic of countries taking action against those in their borders, I read a good article yesterday (no link atm) regarding the role Iran played following 9-11 rounding up people and confiscating passports and even cooperating with US officials on the interrogations of some; they were actually the most helpful of any of the middle eastern countries in the immediate months following the attack on us. Bush did a nice job of repaying them with his Axis of Evil bullshit, regardless of the history we have with them.

Actually I think Obama made it clear he would do just this sort of thing in Pakistan if needed. I'm trying to recall the speech and exact wording.

Actually I think Obama made it clear he would do just this sort of thing in Pakistan if needed. I'm trying to recall the speech and exact wording.

Obama said in the debate the other night he would do so under certain conditions; and, McCain slammed him for it for telling the enemy what he would do, even though McCain himself has said almost exactly the same thing in the past.

McCain slammed him for it for telling the enemy what he would do

...it's especially funny after Palin said they would hit targets in Pakistan as well.

I thought the same thing Ailwon when I heard Palin say it too. I'm surprised that Obama didn't respond with that Tuesday night.

What is really funny, although really sad at the same time, is the complete lack of respect the McCain/Palin campaign is showing for the American public.

In the past week, 100% of McCain's ads have been negative compared to 33% of the Obama campaignss'. (As reported my the media watchdogs on the news)

McCain and Palin say something, and then turn around and bash Obama for saying it.

Cindy McCain expresses outrage at Obama voting against a budget bill that her husband also voted against.

McCain expresses his outrage and sadness that the American public is being saddled with a ten trillion dollar debt, but then proposes to buy up all the outstanding mortgages at 100% value and lose money for the taxpayers and increase that debt needlessly.


He stopped being a 'Maverick' long ago, and is now simply doing and saying whatever he believes in his desperation may help him get into the White House. He consistently demonstrates these days that he has left his integrity behind, as he changes positions and goes back on previous statements trying to win votes.

He is behind in the polls because people don't like what they are seeing in him, and he grows worse as the margin between he and Obama increases. The distraction that is Palin is not the asset he had wanted, although it does open a larger avenue for attacking Obama/Biden since any couterattack will immediately be framed as sexist; which, obviously, only shows more disdain for women.

I think this election and the coming few years will see a great turnover from the *old* guard in Washington politics to a younger batch of elected officials, with a lot of 'new' veterans becoming part of the mix in Washington.

He consistently demonstrates these days that he has left his integrity behind, as he changes positions and goes back on previous statements trying to win votes.



It's almost as bad as watching John Kerry in the last election....