You just advocated taking action in Pakistan against the wishes of the Pakistan government. That’s exactly Obama’s position as well.

Obama said that if Pakistan refused to act on actionable intelligence against “high level” terrorist targets in its country, the US would be forced to act on its own.

You just advocated the exact same policy.

You’re an idiot.

No. I accepted frame’s very unrealistic scenario wherein OBL or his #2 remain magically frozen in place and in missile range, and I didn’t advocate an invasion. Furthermore, I wouldn’t not be advertising ahead of time my intention to invade. All different from Obama.

And the problem with the frontier area is that Paksitan is unable to police it - it is too big, rural and semi hostile. Musha just completed a raid in there last week (heli.s) and they have raided there before. But thats the problem. They have to raid.

frame

You know of course I saw this coming along time agoa and still responded to your fairy tale scenario. And ita still not the same. Obama has not limited himself to cruise missiles or remote strikes at all. Now, he could belatedly do that but that sure as hell doesn’t sound like the war drums OW is pounding and it will look really bad compared to Hillary who never has walked out on that stupid invade-Pakistan plank Obama put himself on.

No. I accepted frame’s very unrealistic scenario wherein OBL or his #2 remain magically frozen in place and in missile range, and I didn’t advocate an invasion. Furthermore, I wouldn’t not be advertising ahead of time my intention to invade. All different from Obama.

And the problem with the frontier area is that Paksitan is unable to police it - it is too big, rural and semi hostile. Musha just completed a raid in there last week (heli.s) and they have raided there before. But thats the problem. They have to raid.

frame

You know of course I saw this coming along time agoa and still responded to your fairy tale scenario. And ita still not the same. Obama has not limited himself to cruise missiles or remote strikes at all. Now, he could belatedly do that but that sure as hell doesn’t sound like the war drums OW is pounding and it will look really bad compared to Hillary who never has walked out on that stupid invade-Pakistan plank Obama put himself on.

“if we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President
Musharraf won’t act, we will”

Dugger just wrote:

“If so and I knew the probability of success was almost a certainty, I would probably do the strike … Pakistan would be pissed, but if we said nothing, they might just swallow the violation and let it pass.”

Pop some popcorn and watch dugger parse the differences in what promises to be a truly dazzling display of idiot hackery …

Dugger is an idiot.

Historically, it would not appear so.

Musharraf has a treaty in place with the warlords/tribal leaders of the area that they can do whatever they want as long as they don’t attack Pakistani forces or US forces. They have not attacked Pakistani forces in over 4 years. They continue to attack US forces across the border and remain unchallenged about it.

Oh, in addition to aiding and abetting, harboring and protecting al Qaeda.

I’ll respond to your scenario even though its highly unlikely (the target would move, the target is not likely in range - and that wouldn’t be a coincidence, etc etc). So a target is frozen in position long enough for us to get a missile in launching range. And Pakistan has said no. Well, my action would depend on who the target is: OBL? OBL’s # 2? Somebody very close? If so and I knew the probability of success was almost a certainty, I would probably do the strike and not say a thing about it for a while. Keep in mind, per your scenario, Pakistan would know it came from us. I would say nothing for a while. Pakistan would be pissed, but if we said nothing, they might just swallow the violation and let it pass. Later, I would announce to the world that a few months back in a secret strike in a classified area, we killed OBL. Imperfect (a strike like that is never a ‘certainty’ and I wouldn’t put it past AQ to surround OBl with innocent children - I assume your sceanrio includes minmal colalteral damge posibilities) but them its a very unrealistic scenario. Its my contention that, rather than being Obama’s bogeyman, Pakistan would love, themselves, to be able to take out OBL and his henchpersons.

We have solid actionable intelligence indicating exactly where and when we might find some significant al qaeda target in Pakistan, possibly Bin Laden, himself. The intelligence is solid, a missile strike would do the trick. We’re ready to roll but Pakistan says no.

In your mind we should back off and let the intel go? yes or no?

I’ll note again that you are now quibbling over semantics instead of actual policy differences. We all know that Bush would never surrender our military and national security interests to Pakistan’s approval. His position is exactly the same as Obama’s.

Oh mercy, dugger. Now you’re down to arguing that Bush is a foreign policy genius because he invaded Afghanistan (failing to catch Bin laden in the process while allowing the taliban to regroup and return) and Iraq (a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 and failing just about everything in the process).

I don’t think we should have invaded Iraq nor should we invade pakistan or iraq. Of course, you keep using the term invasion despite the fact that Obama said no such thing.
be that as it may, if Saudi Arabia or Pakistan are not doing what they need to do to control terrorists and terrorist support networks within their countries, we will have to do something on our own if we can’t convince them diplomatically.

The alternative that you are proposing is that we hand control of our foreign policy and military options over to dictators and despots just because they claim to be our allies, but actually do nothing for us because they are afraid of their own populations.

hell, you want to spread democracy in the middle east? How about pushing hard for some democratic reforms in pakistan and saudi arabia, instead of giving them billions of dollars in aid and weapons so they can continue to oppress their own people?

You are such a fucking hack it boggles the mind.

How would you do it? Again, you poo poo everyone else, but you has no plan.

Or do you really feel Obama is full of Dodo doodoo and are trying to give him cover by claiming Bush has the same position (which he does not - he has been president since 2000 and has invaded neither).

Its one thing not to promise anything - the wise thing Ms Clinton is doing - another to state openly that you would invade a sovereign ally - as Obama is doing.

And “actionable intelligence?”

Please.

The trick now is determining which is which.

Remember this? State of the Union, 2001?

And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.

From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

Hmmm, nowhere does it say “unless it’s Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.”
Must have been a typo.