Is President Obama Losing Control of the War on Terror (drug, Afghanistan)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"The most likely culprit in Bhutto’s death is al-Qaeda and aligned militant groups — the same groups who swore they would kill Bhutto when her return to Pakistan was announced, the same groups who tried to kill her in October. If al-Qaeda was indeed responsible, this is another stark reminder of the group’s regeneration in Pakistan’s tribal areas. Al-Qaeda’s senior leadership has returned to the levels of power they enjoyed in Afghanistan before U.S. forces toppled the Taliban, and Bhutto’s death has to be considered a major victory for them. There is also evidence that Bhutto’s assassination, much like the October attempt on her life, may have been assisted by Islamic militants who have infiltrated Pakistan’s military and intelligence services.
Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf has never risen to the occasion in the face of danger. He has attempted to broker compromises even following assassination attempts that targeted him. The Waziristan accords, consummated in 2006, were one sign of how Musharraf has attempted to negotiate away Pakistan’s problem with Islamic militancy: those accords essentially formalized al-Qaeda’s safe haven in the country’s Waziristan region. In no way were those accords an isolated event: Pakistan’s further concessions in 2007 included the Bajaur, Swat, and Mohmand tribal agencies.
In short, Bush spent billions of dollars in aid to Pakistan which Pakistan under Musharraf promptly spent shoring up his forces against India while simultaneously cutting deals with al-Qaeda and the Taliban which his intelligence agencies (see ISI) had been aiding since their inception. Who needed to take over the country when the Musharraf just gave them an open hand and keys to the city?
Once again the strange and circular argument of the conservatives. Obama promises to bring the fight to Pakistan and you folks went all a twitter, now that he has actually raised the level of troops in Afghanistan, broadened the strikes against terrorist targets in the tribal areas of Pakistan, by some equally strange logic, you now have the temerity to argue that he is being soft on national security?
What the farm?
You twits, have spent the last 6 years focusing on everything and everybody other than those who actually attacked the U.S. on 9/11. So, while you were playing mental masturbation games with North Korea, Iran and Syria, Afghanistan-Pakistan was head down the shiite hole.
Suddenly you get a whiff of coffee, after your 7 year hiatus and you want to know why the situation is what it is.
Puleeze go back to your birth certificate/socialist/secession discussions and leave the real world to the grown ups.
I will go light on you, Mr. Grown Up. Seeing as that I've spent two tours in Iraq and one in Afghan, I am far more qualified than you are to opine on a subject that you so fondly like to recall from your armchair.
As far as the Butto assassination goes, Al Qaeda succeeded decisively. However, I'm not positive that you can equate Al Qaeda pockets to the Taliban militia of Afghanistan. Both are enemies of the U.S. and Pakistan, but Al Qaeda is not leading the push for Islamabad. It may be a stretch to link those two groups as one-in-the-same.
I would like to think that Obama is not soft on national-security. After only 100 days, I think its too soon to tell, but his efforts to take action in Afghanistan are a step in the right direction. However, I believe you conveniently forget that Bush also directed attacks inside of Pakistan and it was Bush that decimated the Taliban in 2003. So about that 7-year hiatus you speak of....I was in the Big Sand Box...where were you? From the sound of it, it seems you were suckling off the same teet as Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews.
Last edited by AeroGuyDC; 05-06-2009 at 10:00 PM..
there was no war on terror. there was a 7 years occupational tour of duty in bagdad which cost huge loss of life and rapidly became a sunni sheiiite civil war.
Obama's learning curve is going to kill many innocent people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
The Man has never had control of this problem because he doesn't really consider terrorists who aren't like me and you to be terrorists.
Obama's learning curve is going to kill many innocent people.Obama spent his first months in office wanting to smile and shake hands with these terrorists.
These terrorists don't want to talk. They want to kill or be killed for their religion. They think the more they kill, the better benefits in heaven.
When Obama got elected, he boosted the morale of the terrorists.
Clown.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obama's learning curve is going to kill many innocent people.
