|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:20 pm Post subject: Re: The War in Pakistan |
 |
|
| Gopher wrote: |
This seems to represent a controversial pseudoissue in the presidential campaigns.
| Quote: |
U.S. military forces launched airstrikes on a Pakistani village early Wednesday morning, two Pakistani military sources told CNN.
The strikes occurred about 1 a.m. in a village in North Waziristan, a mountainous region of northwest Pakistan near the Afghanistan border, a Pakistani military source said.
U.S. military sources could not immediately be reached for comment.
The sources said the U.S. military launched two or three missiles that struck at least one home. The sources did not have any information on casualties or injuries.
U.S. attacks in Pakistan have become a controversial issue in recent weeks.
In July, President Bush approved U.S. incursions in Pakistan to go after insurgents without consulting first with Islamabad... |
I submit that J. McCain, B. Obama, and S. Palin do not disagree at all on this issue. The war has spilled into Pakistan, and has probably been spilling into Pakistan for some time, just as the Soviets once brought their counterinsurgency war over this border. Save-havens conveniently located across nation-states' boundaries tend to become targets as wars progress -- see Cambodia and Laos for other examples.
The differences in the campaign seem to come from J. McCain's wanting to punish B. Obama for openly suggesting and supporting this, thus breaching official "plausible deniability." He is correct to do so.
However, B. Obama also seems to be pursuing a good election-year strategy in bringing it up -- comparable, indeed, to JFK's putting R. Nixon in an uncomfortable position re: the Bay of Pigs in 1960.
CNN Reports |
How is it plausible deniability when ever we raid Pakistan its in the news? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 11:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The news is the news, NAVFC. Official acknowledgement is another matter entirely.
Please note that "American military sources" and "Pakistani military sources" are talking off-the-record in this newsarticle, for example. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 3:08 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
The news is the news, NAVFC. Official acknowledgement is another matter entirely.
Please note that "American military sources" and "Pakistani military sources" are talking off-the-record in this newsarticle, for example. |
Indeed. He should publicly state that he will maintain plausible deniability if/when such actions take place.
So, we're already "attacking Pakistani citizens" with whom we are at peace.
What red flag are you trying to raise?
| Quote: |
| Now he, J. McCain, S. Palin, and the press are discussing it, aiming to interpret or spin it to their advantage. No more no less. |
They're not the only ones.
If I were them, I'd go for the infanticide. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 3:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| attacking Pakistani citizens" |
The US is not technically attacking Pakistani citizens as the Pakistan Government hasn't technically controlled the tribal area ever.
Thats the problem.
The low landers are scared of the highlanders and will make agreements not to attack them. If the highlanders were part of pakistan, then we might really have a problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 4:15 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| attacking Pakistani citizens" |
The US is not technically attacking Pakistani citizens as the Pakistan Government hasn't technically controlled the tribal area ever. |
Indeed. Technically, it's a strawman to say that Al Quaeda and Pakistanis aren't neatly divided since no one suggested that was the case.
Technically, attacking a village can mean things other than attacking its citizens.
Technically, Obama said nothing about attacking Pakistani citizens.
Technically, I'm not sure we're at peace with Pakistan.
Technically, this is an election year, and you get all kinds of hysterical interpretations from opponents.
Technically, this board is permanently in election year form. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 4:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Afghanistan: The war they all agree on
Posted: 2008/09/19
Despite the appalling conditions that seven years of U.S. occupation have produced for ordinary Afghans, the two U.S. ruling parties came together in August to plan the escalation of that sordid war with the goal of adding 10,000 more U.S. troops in the coming year.
Barack Obama chided his Republican rival during his acceptance speech at the Democratic Party convention on August 28, using a page from Bush's playbook: "John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell--but he won't even go to the cave where he lives."
Obama did not utter a word of criticism about rising civilian casualties, rampant corruption, the flourishing drug trade or women's oppression in U.S.-occupied Afghanistan during that historic speech. On the contrary, he continued, "I will end this war in Iraq responsibly, and finish the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan."
Ending the war in Iraq "responsibly" will allow a long-term U.S. military presence there--and the redeployment of 10,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan to "finish" the job started by George W. Bush.
In one fell swoop, the candidate whose slogan is "change" laid out a strategy bearing striking similarity to that of the neocons who invaded Afghanistan in 2001. This was not a surprise. Obama first expressed his willingness to bomb Iran and Pakistan in 2004, when he told the Chicago Tribune, "surgical missile strikes" on Iran may become necessary.
"On the other hand," he continued, "having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse." Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if "violent Islamic extremists" were to "take over."
Obama represents the dissenting ruling class view since 2003, which regarded the Iraq war as a "distraction" from the real war the U.S. should pursue. That war has little to do with al-Qaeda, but much more to do with Afghanistan's strategic location in Central Asia, and its borders with Iran, Pakistan, Russia and China.
more at link |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 4:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, so you agree with me.
Good. 
I know the technical argument is quite disengineous.
Though how can Pakistan argue that we are attacking it, when they don't even control the area that is attacked.
That is also a straw man.
""We are the government and we are protecting you from the big bad ?, but we are too scared to actually go there to see if it actually happened.
We are a nation, though don't ask us to control that area. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 4:47 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
Oh, so you agree with me.
Good. Laughing |
I take no issue with your assessment. 
I, however, have a problem with someone claiming that Obama has announced that he would attack Pakistani citizens.
It was clearly part of a spin cycle (off of which at least one here gets their jollies ( ).
As you'll note, I don't think this issue will have any effect on the outcome of the election.
I think it ranks right up there with infanticide as an issue. In fact, I'd say that infanticide ranks higher given that, per one observer, it appears we are already attacking Pakistani citizens. Kind of hard to show someone is naive when it's already being practiced by the "learned". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 8:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Indeed. Technically, it's a strawman to say that...Technically, attacking a village can mean...Technically, Obama said... |
Nowhere Man: this is a current-events story. The American and Pakistani govts are discussing it. The presidential candidates are discussing it. The newsmedia continues to report it.
I am sorry that your psychology is such that you suspect some sleight-of-hand move on my part to discredit B. Obama through this story and that therefore you bring, yet again, your palpable bitterness and puerility to my door, apparently intending "to counter" it. But you are completely off base. Why am I not surprised? I increasingly find you woefully ignorant of American foreign relations -- you know the far left's rapid-fire, allegation-drive master-narrative, the one that leaps from one high-profile event to the next. You actually know little about the American govt's workings. And I doubt that you have actually looked at "plausible deniability" in any detail before I introduced and partially explained it here. "He should publicly state that he will maintain 'plausible deniability?'" ROFL.
In any case, please relax, my very hysterical Mrs. Gopher. This is a messageboard and nothing posted here will likely impact the election one iota. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
Afghanistan: The war they all agree on
Posted: 2008/09/19
Despite the appalling conditions that seven years of U.S. occupation have produced for ordinary Afghans, the two U.S. ruling parties came together in August to plan the escalation of that sordid war with the goal of adding 10,000 more U.S. troops in the coming year.
Barack Obama chided his Republican rival during his acceptance speech at the Democratic Party convention on August 28, using a page from Bush's playbook: "John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell--but he won't even go to the cave where he lives."
Obama did not utter a word of criticism about rising civilian casualties, rampant corruption, the flourishing drug trade or women's oppression in U.S.-occupied Afghanistan during that historic speech. On the contrary, he continued, "I will end this war in Iraq responsibly, and finish the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan."
Ending the war in Iraq "responsibly" will allow a long-term U.S. military presence there--and the redeployment of 10,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan to "finish" the job started by George W. Bush.
In one fell swoop, the candidate whose slogan is "change" laid out a strategy bearing striking similarity to that of the neocons who invaded Afghanistan in 2001. This was not a surprise. Obama first expressed his willingness to bomb Iran and Pakistan in 2004, when he told the Chicago Tribune, "surgical missile strikes" on Iran may become necessary.
"On the other hand," he continued, "having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse." Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if "violent Islamic extremists" were to "take over."
Obama represents the dissenting ruling class view since 2003, which regarded the Iraq war as a "distraction" from the real war the U.S. should pursue. That war has little to do with al-Qaeda, but much more to do with Afghanistan's strategic location in Central Asia, and its borders with Iran, Pakistan, Russia and China.
more at link |
Who is Mathaba?.
| Quote: |
Al Mathaba
Anti-Imperialism Center (AIC)
Al Mathaba (meaning center) is the Libyan center for anti-imperialist propaganda which has funded third world guerilla groups. The Anti-Imperialism Center (AIC) - also known as Mathaba - is used by the Libyan Government to support terrorist networks and thus plays an important role in Qadhafi's terrorism strategy. Established in 1982 to support "liberation and revolutionary groups�, the AIC has sponsored a number of stridently anti-Western conferences in Tripoli. At the same time, the AIC's mission is to identify and recruit revolutionaries for ideological and military training in Libya. During their training at AIC camps, individuals are selected for advanced training, including in weapons and explosives, and indoctrination. With representatives in many Libyan embassies worldwide, the AIC runs its own independent clandestine operations and disburses payments to terrorist, insurgent, and subversive groups.
As of 1992 the AIC was headed by Musa Kusa, a Qadhafi confidant who was also Libya's Deputy Foreign Minister. As of late 1995 Musa Kusa was the head of the Libyan External Security Organization (ESO), and was also the head of Al Mathaba.
Al Mathaba is more a concept than an organisation. Its origins are Libyan and its objective anti-imperialist. Libya�s international activity is considerable. Some see it everywhere, behind every armed, or even radical, group. It was in 1982 that Libya took the initiative of organising an international organisation essentially based on the third world: Al Mathaba. |
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/libya/mathaba.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 4:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
What a shock! Joo's attacking the messenger.
It is nice to see you cannot dispute the substance of the article.
Yawn. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 5:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
What a shock! Joo's attacking the messenger.
It is nice to see you cannot dispute the substance of the article.
Yawn. |
I didn't try. But that site isn't a good source for info. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
