|
|
Post by NotMyKid on Jan 23, 2009 14:24:06 GMT -6
I wonder if they got their phone call and a meeting with a public defender?  ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- Seventeen people were killed Friday evening in two U.S. missile strikes in Pakistan's tribal region, said one government and two military officials. They are the first such strikes since President Obama took office Tuesday. Both hits were near the Afghan border, said local political official Nasim Dawar. The Pakistani military sources asked not to be named because they are not authorized to release such information. The first strike, which killed 10 people, occurred about 5:15 p.m. (7:15 a.m. ET) in a village near Mir Ali in North Waziristan, the officials said. Seven people died in the second hit at 7:30 p.m. (9:30 a.m. ET) near Wana, the major town in South Waziristan, 17 miles (27 kilometers) from Afghanistan, they said. There has been no immediate response from U.S. officials. The Pakistan military's top spokesman called the attacks, which he said were by pilotless drones, "counterproductive," because they undercut his country's efforts to oust militants from the ungoverned tribal areas. "It helps us in no way conducting our operations," Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas told CNN. "We are trying to create to wean away the tribe at large from the militant component of the tribe. But it diminishes the line which divides the militant component and the tribe at large." Abbas said, "We face much more difficulty as a result of drone strikes, and we have conveyed our position on that" to the United States. Former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, interviewed on CNN's "The Situation Room," repeated that public opinion in his country is strongly against the strikes on Pakistan territory.
Musharraf was asked whether he is comfortable with the continuation of the attacks, even with a new U.S. president in place.
"As far as this issue of the new president, President Obama, having taken over and this continuing ... I've always been saying that policies don't change with personalities.
"Policies have national interests, and policies depend on an environment."
The former leader added that he believes the environment and national interests of the United States" are the same.www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/01/23/pakistan.missile/index.html |
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Jan 23, 2009 19:59:24 GMT -6
Love him or hate him, so far Obama has been a man of his word.
Osama Bin Laden and his buddies are fucked.
|
|
|
|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on Jan 23, 2009 22:39:38 GMT -6
WHAT?! We were "air raiding villages and killing civilians"? No F'ing way.
|
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Jan 24, 2009 8:26:37 GMT -6
Man, I sure as shit hope the Pakistanis had our back on that strike. This is like Mexico shooting missiles at the Minute Men while they were patrolling "an ungoverned tribal area" of the Arizona border. Oh well, it's kind the arms extended, "Hey Pakistan, we just shot some missiles into your country. What ya gonna do? Wanna throw down?"
|
|
|
|
Post by mattahawk on Jan 25, 2009 23:17:24 GMT -6
WHAT?! We were "air raiding villages and killing civilians"? No F'ing way. Ha, that's a classic. I would love to play that back at him. And yes, I have no problem with the bombing other than it is probably pissing off more militant nut-jobs and convincing them further that we are the devil. So while I like the idea of going after them I wonder if it is counter productive. |
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Jan 26, 2009 10:45:50 GMT -6
WHAT?! We were "air raiding villages and killing civilians"? No F'ing way. Ha, that's a classic. I would love to play that back at him. And yes, I have no problem with the bombing other than it is probably pissing off more militant nut-jobs and convincing them further that we are the devil. So while I like the idea of going after them I wonder if it is counter productive. You can play it back at him, but it won't matter, because the quote was lifted out of context (shocker.) He was referring to the fact that we have to rely on these airstrikes because of insufficient ground troops. So actually the entire episode validates his position. |
|
|
|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on Jan 26, 2009 11:28:50 GMT -6
Ha, that's a classic. I would love to play that back at him. And yes, I have no problem with the bombing other than it is probably pissing off more militant nut-jobs and convincing them further that we are the devil. So while I like the idea of going after them I wonder if it is counter productive. You can play it back at him, but it won't matter, because the quote was lifted out of context (shocker.) He was referring to the fact that we have to rely on these airstrikes because of insufficient ground troops. So actually the entire episode validates his position. Uh, yeah. How many troops do we have in Pakistan? |
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Jan 26, 2009 13:31:12 GMT -6
You can play it back at him, but it won't matter, because the quote was lifted out of context (shocker.) He was referring to the fact that we have to rely on these airstrikes because of insufficient ground troops. So actually the entire episode validates his position. Uh, yeah. How many troops do we have in Pakistan? The region in question is lawless and essentially "borderless." Bombs away. |
|
|
|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on Jan 26, 2009 13:58:48 GMT -6
Oh, Absolutely. It's great to see The President continue to follow his predecessor's military doctrine. It's great that you libs saw the true meaning of The President's words: Air raiding villages and killing civilians in lawless areas of is bad(when we're not calling the shots). BUT... on the other hand, air raiding villages and killing civilians in lawless areas is good(when we're calling the shots). Beautiful, really. |
|
|
|
Post by roxxstar on Jan 26, 2009 14:02:26 GMT -6
It's bad either way.
|
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Jan 26, 2009 15:49:40 GMT -6
Oh, Absolutely. It's great to see The President continue to follow his predecessor's military doctrine. It's great that you libs saw the true meaning of The President's words: Air raiding villages and killing civilians in lawless areas of is bad(when we're not calling the shots). BUT... on the other hand, air raiding villages and killing civilians in lawless areas is good(when we're calling the shots). Beautiful, really. I never said it was bad. It's the only real option. Was then, is now. |
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on Jan 26, 2009 15:57:45 GMT -6
Ha, that's a classic. I would love to play that back at him. And yes, I have no problem with the bombing other than it is probably pissing off more militant nut-jobs and convincing them further that we are the devil. So while I like the idea of going after them I wonder if it is counter productive. You can play it back at him, but it won't matter, because the quote was lifted out of context (shocker.) He was referring to the fact that we have to rely on these airstrikes because of insufficient ground troops. So actually the entire episode validates his position. Matta - were you not thinking this during Iraq? Bombings = more people pissed at us. At least now we are bombing the correct place. The Taliban and more than likely Bin Laden are in this area. They are the ones who took credit for 9/11, they are the ones we should have been going after the whole time. It's amazing that Iraq apologists are criticizing this military operation....you folks have no credibility on foreign policy |
|
|
|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on Jan 26, 2009 16:56:23 GMT -6
You can play it back at him, but it won't matter, because the quote was lifted out of context (shocker.) He was referring to the fact that we have to rely on these airstrikes because of insufficient ground troops. So actually the entire episode validates his position. Matta - were you not thinking this during Iraq? Bombings = more people pissed at us. At least now we are bombing the correct place. The Taliban and more than likely Bin Laden are in this area. They are the ones who took credit for 9/11, they are the ones we should have been going after the whole time. It's amazing that Iraq apologists are criticizing this military operation....you folks have no credibility on foreign policy You stupid asswipe. Which Iraq apologist is criticising the operation? What is being criticised(by me) is The President's and other's hypocrisy regarding air strikes the killing of civilians. Here's another air raid from yesterday from Kabul. apnews.myway.com/article/20090125/D95U5GUO1.htmlIf Mr. Obama was so against air raiding and killing civilians because of insufficient ground troops, he should have waited until the 30,000 or so marines going to this theater were deployed. And of course, The President and others apparently don't realize that air and ground forces are used together for maximum effect, whatever the size of the ground force is. I'll bet my last dollar that when ground reinforcements arrive, we'll see an uptick in air strikes. |
|
|
|
Post by socal on Jan 26, 2009 17:03:08 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by socal on Jan 26, 2009 17:03:31 GMT -6
Matta - were you not thinking this during Iraq? Bombings = more people pissed at us. At least now we are bombing the correct place. The Taliban and more than likely Bin Laden are in this area. They are the ones who took credit for 9/11, they are the ones we should have been going after the whole time. It's amazing that Iraq apologists are criticizing this military operation....you folks have no credibility on foreign policy You stupid asswipe. Which Iraq apologist is criticising the operation? What is being criticised(by me) is The President's and other's hypocrisy regarding air strikes the killing of civilians. Here's another air raid from yesterday from Kabul. apnews.myway.com/article/20090125/D95U5GUO1.htmlIf Mr. Obama was so against air raiding and killing civilians because of insufficient ground troops, he should have waited until the 30,000 or so marines going to this theater were deployed. And of course, The President and others apparently don't realize that air and ground forces are used together for maximum effect, whatever the size of the ground force is. I'll bet my last dollar that when ground reinforcements arrive, we'll see an uptick in air strikes. Thanks for the input General. |
|
|
|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on Jan 26, 2009 17:18:06 GMT -6
You stupid asswipe. Which Iraq apologist is criticising the operation? What is being criticised(by me) is The President's and other's hypocrisy regarding air strikes the killing of civilians. Here's another air raid from yesterday from Kabul. apnews.myway.com/article/20090125/D95U5GUO1.htmlIf Mr. Obama was so against air raiding and killing civilians because of insufficient ground troops, he should have waited until the 30,000 or so marines going to this theater were deployed. And of course, The President and others apparently don't realize that air and ground forces are used together for maximum effect, whatever the size of the ground force is. I'll bet my last dollar that when ground reinforcements arrive, we'll see an uptick in air strikes. Thanks for the input General. My pleasure. Funny you replied in timely fashion. I had you in mind while writing the above post. In a thread on the old board, you were scratching your head as to why we were still conducting so many air operations in Iraq, stating(paraphrased): But the shia has no air force. Priceless! It's great that you and commander cali have finally come around. Edit: Nice, fast delete, cali. I'm a VW? Is this really that funny...HaHa! |
|
|
|
Post by mattahawk on Jan 26, 2009 21:15:42 GMT -6
You can play it back at him, but it won't matter, because the quote was lifted out of context (shocker.) He was referring to the fact that we have to rely on these airstrikes because of insufficient ground troops. So actually the entire episode validates his position. Matta - were you not thinking this during Iraq? Bombings = more people pissed at us. At least now we are bombing the correct place. The Taliban and more than likely Bin Laden are in this area. They are the ones who took credit for 9/11, they are the ones we should have been going after the whole time. It's amazing that Iraq apologists are criticizing this military operation....you folks have no credibility on foreign policy Actually LP, I was thinking this for about the last 4/5 years including but not only pertaining to Iraq. No doubt Pakistan IS the correct place. I am not an Iraq apologist and would challenge you to find a post where I say so. I do find it funny that Obama is slowly taking Bushs' policies as his own after spending the last 2 years denouncing them. Of course we all knew that was going to happen didn't we? It is so easy to sit there, much like an armchair qb and say, "this is what we should be doing and this is how we should be doing it." Then when he takes office the little tiny light in his head comes on and it's, "Oh shit, he was right." Case in point Gitmo. He closed it down, fine by me but you had damn well better have a plan what you are going to do with them mo'fo's because if you just set them free thinking they don't need to be there they will just end up back on the front lines fighting against American troops and plotting to bomb us again. I found it quite hilarious the way those reporters were grilling his new press guy, gibbs?, about how are we now safer after closing Gitmo? Good stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by NotMyKid on Jan 27, 2009 9:57:05 GMT -6
Don't you remember Bush was a warmonger and didn't give a shit what other countries thought of the US or terrorist rights because he was "protecting America" I thought Obama was on the other end of the spectrum or did I miss something? |
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Jan 27, 2009 12:01:53 GMT -6
Don't you remember Bush was a warmonger and didn't give a shit what other countries thought of the US or terrorist rights because he was "protecting America" I thought Obama was on the other end of the spectrum or did I miss something? In some respects Obama has been more aggressive than Bush...for example, Obama has consistently stated his intent to greatly increase troop levels in Afghanistan, and he has repeatedly stated that he would go into Pakistan in pursuit of Al Qaeda. He's doing what he said he was going to do. He never promised the things you accuse him of promising. Your strawmen arguments are growing tiresome. |
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Jan 27, 2009 14:56:32 GMT -6
Don't you remember Bush was a warmonger and didn't give a shit what other countries thought of the US or terrorist rights because he was "protecting America" I thought Obama was on the other end of the spectrum or did I miss something? In some respects Obama has been more aggressive than Bush...for example, Obama has consistently stated his intent to greatly increase troop levels in Afghanistan, and he has repeatedly stated that he would go into Pakistan in pursuit of Al Qaeda. He's doing what he said he was going to do. He never promised the things you accuse him of promising. Your strawmen arguments are growing tiresome. Actually, Hoffa was on the mark, you weren't on the mark and it would be your BS that is growing tiresome. You were crucifying GW for the exact same things that Barry is now pulling off. |
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Jan 27, 2009 14:59:42 GMT -6
In some respects Obama has been more aggressive than Bush...for example, Obama has consistently stated his intent to greatly increase troop levels in Afghanistan, and he has repeatedly stated that he would go into Pakistan in pursuit of Al Qaeda. He's doing what he said he was going to do. He never promised the things you accuse him of promising. Your strawmen arguments are growing tiresome. Actually, Hoffa was on the mark, you weren't on the mark and it would be your BS that is growing tiresome. You were crucifying GW for the exact same things that Barry is now pulling off. I never said a thing about Bush's actions in this arena, you dissembling asslicker. I've always supported bombing these terrorist-coddling cocksuckers. Go find the post where I've criticized bombing this nether region, or shut the fuck up and quit lying. Goddamn but you're fucking obtuse. Do you use logic or rationality in any part of your life? |
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on Jan 27, 2009 16:18:44 GMT -6
Actually, Hoffa was on the mark, you weren't on the mark and it would be your BS that is growing tiresome. You were crucifying GW for the exact same things that Barry is now pulling off. I never said a thing about Bush's actions in this arena, you dissembling asslicker. I've always supported bombing these terrorist-coddling cocksuckers. Go find the post where I've criticized bombing this nether region, or shut the f**k up and quit lying. Goddamn but you're fucking obtuse. Do you use logic or rationality in any part of your life? G-Dub has historically ignored this region and underfunded the effort there to bring Bin Laden and Al Qaeda to their knees. The fact that we are still having this discussion 8 years after 9-11 is proof enough that the Bush Adminstration's foreign policy in terms of the Middle East has been a complete failure. Throughout the campaign, Obama said he would focus military attention on the "real" culprits of the 9-11 attacks (that wasn't Saddam and Iraq for you boneheads that haven't figured that out yet). In fact, McCain criticized Obama for wanting to go after Al Qaeda if it meant attacking in Pakistan. What I find interesting is that the guy is so far sticking to his campaign promises in terms of military action in the Middle East and the Bushies claim he is acting just like GWB. When our forces are drawn out of the pointless conflict in Iraq and Al Qaeda/Taliban is diminished in Afghanistan/Pakistan..........what will you have left to complain about? |
|
