What's new

Obama might send troops into Pakistan

It is people like him who create more problems for USA then solutions. I hope he becomes US president. It shall be good for the future of Pakistan. As far as millions of dollars are concerned USA did the same thing in 1990's and we survived. He is not aware of latest developments in Pakistan and these kind of statements are only going to speed up Musharraf’s exit. The consequences for USA in Afghanistan are going to be much worse than they think. Consider this scenario USA attacks Pakistan then it shall have to fight both Afghan fighters and Pakistani forces.
 
obamas middle name is hussein he says hes no longer muslim but he attended a madrassah in indonesia during childhood when he comes to power he will say allahu akhbar i tricked u all

He is trying hard to do down his Moslem past. But given the style of US elections, if he comes even close to winning, they will ensure he is vilified so badly that his chances fade.

He has all the issues stacked up against him - he is black and he was a Moslem!

Could one have any better credential for disqualification (losing) than that in the US?

I was seeing a BBC problem and was horrified to learn that Interracial marriages were banned in some states of the US till 1967! :eek: It was the Loving (the name of the couple [whiteman and blackwoman]) vs the Virginia State that was fought right up to the US Supreme Court that abolished, as the BBC programme said, 'the last vestiges of Slavery'.
 
He has all the issues stacked up against him - he is black and he was a Moslem!

He's probably been influenced by Hirsi Ali's rise to fame and job at an American think tank. :tdown: But really he should keep his snout out of Pakistan affairs..he obviously doesn't understand them :pop:
 
Wasn't there a issue a while back where he was trying to swear a oath on a Koran? I remember having a big discussion with Zraver about it
 
BARAK HUSSAIN OBAMA trying to distant himself from muslim past....
 
US ground invasion of Pakistan ? Out of question, not happening.
Air strikes anywhere in Pakistan ? Sure, if they choose to. USAF will wipe the sky clean in a week.

Will anything be solved by limited attacks inside Pakistan ? No.
 
I stand with Adu's view. Why wud US invade Pakistan, they get theior things done with Mushraff anyways. They have done crossborder attacks and nothing was done abt it.

So they will continue to cross over for specific kills, they wont come to conquer. they have lost apetite for occupation. Thanks to iraq.
 
Wow! Usa will attack Pakistan! :lol:

Great chance to balance this Unipolar world.

Let the Cowards come and the world will get independance from this devil.

by the way Taliban announced that they along with Pakistan Forces will fight against U.S in case of any attack.

Wellcome USA to your grave.
 
Wasn't there a issue a while back where he was trying to swear a oath on a Koran? I remember having a big discussion with Zraver about it

That was Keith Ellison, the first Muslim congressman to be elected. He is black too. That too was a big brouhaha about nothing.

Here is Obama's "controversial" statement:
"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama 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.... If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ma,0,5675270.story?coll=chi-entertainment-utl

He actually requires a higher standard, than the one recently mentioned by some Bush Administration officials, to be met before he would advocate unilateral strikes into Pakistan. I think Pakistanis need to relax. The Pakistani government has already agreed to take action against the terrorists if the U.S provides actionable intelligence. The P.M, in his recent interview with the WaPo, reiterated that stance. So since the government is willing to take action on the basis of actionable intel, the invasion/strikes are not going to materialize. The only situation in which this might be an issue, is if an MMA government was in charge, which does not seem even remotely likely at this point.
 
did iraq have these sort of missiles before the war or the same range.

Hatf-I
Hatf-II (Abdali-I)
Hatf-III (Ghaznavi)
M-11
Ghaznavi
Hatf-V (Ghauri I)
Hatf-V (Ghauri II) carry Conventional and Nuclear
Ghauri-III Ballistic missile Range 4,000 km
Shaheen I
Shaheen-II
Shaheen III
Babur missile
 
US ground invasion of Pakistan ? Out of question, not happening.
Air strikes anywhere in Pakistan ? Sure, if they choose to. USAF will wipe the sky clean in a week.

Will anything be solved by limited attacks inside Pakistan ? No.

While you dream of "limited" attacks; you fail to acknowledge that PA is made up of battle hardened officers; with years of exp, they will from a formidable force that will be the nightmare of any army;while US is running low on troops & morale, how can you expect then to even consider it?

If majority of people start liking blacks & ex-Muslims & he wins, the bill is passed and some how they clone the 500,000 army.

Then I guess US should be prepared for "Nuclear Jihad"; The 9/11 will be a nothing compared to that. I am sure that if the Islamabad falls; the extremist Al-qaeda will be walking around with nuclear warheads and dreams of global Jihad. Of course I am sure that Gov will help them too, They will simply follow the "enemy of the enemy is my best friend" policy.
 
pakistan is no iraq, pakistan's Population is 161.1 million it's army has an active force of 520,000 personnel and 500,000 men in reserve,the army has war experience it has fought three wars with india it has troops fighting the taliban so they are used to fighting,on top of that china has alot of investment in pakistan e.g gwader port,so china will veto,now iran, will they back pakistan because they know that the u.s.a are looking to pick a fight with them will they put there differences aside to back pakistan,plus pakistan are a nuclear power,and saudi arabia a good ally of pakistan will they stay quiet syria ,eqypt,jorden will they not back pakistan due to pakistan helping the in the six day war.
 
BLUSTER OF BERSERK BARACK NUTTY WAY TO LOSE 2 WARS

August 2, 2007 -- EARLIER in his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama just sounded naive. Yesterday, he sounded frightening.

In a speech long on bluster and short on common sense, Obama called, yet again, for withdrawing our troops from Iraq and letting al Qaeda declare victory. But he's not a peacenik: He wants to use those forces to invade Pakistan.

While any sensible American would agree that airstrikes and special-operations raids on al Qaeda and Taliban hideouts in Pakistan make sense, the notion of sending in a massive ground force is madness.

What Obama has in mind would, indeed, make Iraq look like a "cakewalk."

In critiquing the senator's happy-go-lucky belligerency, I have two disadvantages: Unlike Obama, I actually served in the military and, unlike the senator, I've actually been in the stretch of Pakistan he speaks so merrily of invading.

Here's why he's nuts:

* Pakistan is a nuclear power on the brink of internal collapse. Do we really want to drive it over the edge and see loose nukes in the hands of a radicalized military faction - or terrorists?

* The mountain ranges where the terrorists are holed up are vast. The terrain is some of the toughest in the world. An invasion would suck in hundreds of thousands of troops. And a long occupation would be required.

* Even those tribesmen who don't support the Taliban or al Qaeda are proud and xenophobic to extremes - they'd rally against us. And all of the senator's bloggers couldn't stop them.

* The Pakistani military would fight us. Right now, they're cooperating, at least to some degree - but they'd fight any invader.

* President Pervez Musharraf's government would fall - probably overthrown by Islamic nationalists in the military and security services. Welcome to your Islamofascist nuclear power, senator.

* We'd also have to occupy a big corridor through Baluchistan, Pakistan's vast southwest, since we'd lose our current overflight rights and hush-hush transit privileges on the ground.

An army at war needs a lot of fuel, ammunition, food, water, Band-Aids, replacements, etc. (not the sort of things armchair strategists bother about). Afghanistan is landlocked and surrounded by unfriendly states. Pakistan has been helping us keep our troops supplied. And you couldn't sustain Operation Obama by air. The senator hasn't even looked at a map.

* Along with giving away the game in Iraq, an invasion of Pakistan would create a terrorist-recruiting double whammy: The Middle East would mobilize against us - and what could we expect after we invaded a friendly Islamic state?

* Our troops are tired and their gear's worn out. (Obama wouldn't know, and he doesn't care.) They're fighting on in Iraq because they see progress and they have a sense of duty. But does the senator, who clearly doesn't know any soldiers and Marines, expect them to surrender Iraq - then plunge into Pakistan without a collapse in morale?

* Even setting aside the nuke issue, what would President Obama do when Pakistan, an Islamic nation of 170 million, broke into bits? Would we also occupy Karachi, Lahore and other megacities, after they turned into urban jungles where the terrorist became the king of beasts?

Go after al Qaeda? You bet. Anywhere, anytime. But we've got to do it in a way that makes military sense. A general staff recruited from MoveOn.org isn't going to enhance our security.

The only thing Obama accomplished with his wild-eyed pistol-waving yesterday was to make his primary opponent, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, sound like a serious wartime leader.

Ralph Peters' latest book is "Wars of Blood and Faith.
 
US cannot invade Pakistan with troops. It can only flatten it with bombs or missiles - not worth it from the interests of either side the way things stand. The article above is about correct, though not sure frightening is the correct word, he's just some dumbass who got where he is today as a token recipient of PC in the senate..it's so extraordinarily dim what he said, you just have to shake your head in disbelief that people like this occupy such positions.
 
First of all i said that the US will NOT invade Pakistan on the ground. They do not have any political capitol or manpower left for it. But it seems there is a certain underestimation of the American juggernaut here, and a grand fantasy of owns strength. I will not even try to reason or argue on this. Make no mistake, if the US decides to go into Pakistan, it will wipe the floor clean. PA or no PA. There has never been a war machine so overwhelmingly powerful in the history of the human race like the present day US army. The best Pakistan can do is stage an Iraq style insurgency, or pre-emptive nukes [but thats suicide]. So with that cleared out, we can move on.

Now occupying Pakistan is not something even they can do, or want to do.
 
Back
Top Bottom