It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I would vote for Hilary

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2008 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by jpm1602
Obama has given every indication he would like to bring current hostilities to an end and rebuild America's reputation in the world.


But buddy even a person like Bush had not made such blunt statements like ' We will invade Pakistan ' Did Barak actually had the idea what he was talking about? Invading a Partner country on the top of that a country with nuclear weapons and missile technology and read this below





The armed forces of Pakistan are a completely volunteer force and are the seventh largest in the world. The three main components are the Army, Navy and Air Force, supported by a number of paramilitary forces which carry out internal security roles and border patrols. The National Command Authority is responsible for exercise employment and development control of all strategic nuclear forces and organizations.


Source: en.wikipedia.org...

Do you think it's child's play to invade 7th largest Miliatry Power in the world with Nukes????

[edit on 9-5-2008 by LOYAL]




posted on May, 9 2008 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Im an Obama supporter for this next election.

McCain is too liberal for my liking. He's also unecessarily hawkish on foreign policy.

Clinton is....well, words cannot describe how much I dislike her and her policies.

Obama on the other hand is a fresh face to politics. He is exactly what America needs to rebuild their world standing and image. He is what America needs to quash all suggestions of racist undertones within their society.

As for Obama's policy on attacking Waziristan and NWFP in Pakistan unilaterally, Im 100% for it. Pakistan has no intention of sorting out the Taliban and the ISI is a terrorist organisation in itself. Pakistan has proved time and time again that they cannot or will not take the fight to the terrorists on either side of their border. Cross border terrorism is what is allowing the Kashmir issue to worsen; and many experts believe that Bin Laden is hiding in the caves of Waziristan.

A military strike on Pakistani soil to neutralise the enemy would be a strike of actual value as opposed to a fake strike like Iraq.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
If he was good for your country, then I wouldn't expect anything less




i meant Bill Clinton was admired here as a good 'person' regardless of what he did and not did to Pakistan...



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


Seriously dude...

McCain liberal?

Like Dubya is liberal?

< < disappointed.







joking


But McCain still isn't liberal...

[edit on 9/5/2008 by budski]



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Loyal. My name is John. Buddy is pretentious. I heard that about pakistan and chalked it up to sabre rattling. It was an unwise statement to say the least. We are just tired of war in far off lands of very different cultures. Why we need to stick a spoon in the bowl and stir everywhere is not good political science.
Regards



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
As for Obama's policy on attacking Waziristan and NWFP in Pakistan unilaterally, Im 100% for it. Pakistan has no intention of sorting out the Taliban and the ISI is a terrorist organisation in itself. Pakistan has proved time and time again that they cannot or will not take the fight to the terrorists on either side of their border. Cross border terrorism is what is allowing the Kashmir issue to worsen; and many experts believe that Bin Laden is hiding in the caves of Waziristan.

A military strike on Pakistani soil to neutralise the enemy would be a strike of actual value as opposed to a fake strike like Iraq.


well! i think Barak can not be worse person than Bush,,, even Bush did not choose to invade Pakistan.. what do you think is holding him back to invade Pakistan..... you guys really live in the world of dreams isn't? Do you actually have an idea what you guys are talking about... you have only fought with vietnam , afghanistan and Iraq and needless to say could not defeat them let alone defeat ' 7th largest Miliatary Power with Nukes '

You guys never would attack Iran you can't afford to do that... man... the world has changed alot since ever the US dropped Nukes on Japan everyone has got the ready 'Plan B' to cope with US.... while i believe Plan A would be enough though


If Bin Laden is here in Pakistan what is holding them back to arrest them.. ground invasion in Waziristan would be greater mess than anyone can think of, though i denounce of all those extremist they are bunch of morons and must be dealt with force...!!!!! However if you think Pakistan is not serious in dealing with terrorism and or Pakistan is just like afghanistan then you are terribly mistaken my buddy!!!

[edit on 9-5-2008 by LOYAL]



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Bin Laden is a figure head. Wouldn't be worth the bullet to shoot him. Your tone Loyal is imperialistic and anti US. Further dialogue with you seems pointless.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


en.wikipedia.org...

Foreign policy: Neo-con Hawk [Disliked by me]

Economic policy: Opposed to tax cuts/ now claiming he would cut taxes but would run a deficit economy [Disliked by me]

Healthcare: Mandated higher contributions from seniors to pay for government cuts in this area. [No view from me]

Religion: Claimed that USA was formed on Christian principles. Completely wrong. Claimed that he would only support a Christian president.

2nd Amendment: F- rating from GOA; C+ from the NRA... poor grades at any rate.

Immigration: Favours amnesty, wants to allow illegal immigrants to recieve all the benefits of citizenship without actual citizenship.

From Source:



* The Almanac of American Politics, edited by Michael Barone and Richard E. Cohen, rates votes as liberal or conservative, with 100 as the highest rating, in three policy areas: Economic, Social, and Foreign. For 2006, McCain's ratings are: Economic = 64 percent conservative, 35 percent liberal (2005: 52 percent conservative, 47 percent liberal);[3] Social = 46 percent conservative, 53 percent liberal (2005: 64 percent conservative, 23 percent liberal);[3] Foreign = 58 percent conservative, 40 percent liberal (2005: 54 percent conservative, 45 percent liberal)[3]


Oh, hes a liberal all right. Apparently good mates with Billary too.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Loyal,
I have followed much more of this nominating political nightmare than I almost can stomache BUT, it is my firm opinion that Obama is nothing even close to being a "war monger". He in fact gets criticized for saying he wants to talk to "bad" people first, rather than just smashing them.
He understands that "we" need to repair our image in the world.
I can only speak for myself, but I desperatly want to believe we are the kind of Country I thought we were when I was a kid. My highest moment of national pride was when a bunch of my Minnesota boys beat the Russian's in Lake Placid. It represented so much......but alas, I got older and more cynical.
Obama at least has sparked some hope in me. ( Remember, I still think Ron Paul would really be a wonderful radical about face) but that just isn't the world we live in now. Obama is the right move to try and turn this huge Titanic around.
I wonder why, and am a bit concerned, that you media would portray Obama as being militant or that he was Muslim, ever. Talk about your pc taboo, we talk about Muslims as being fine and dandy but, ohhhhh, nooooo, you couldn't have one as President. Don't feel bad, I think Kennedy was the only Catholic President. (63% sure on that)
.....................
oooooh, someone just mentioned too that Hillary is Bill. Oh, how I wish that were true....or should I say, I wish that the Bill I knew was the Bill of today. Man, it breaks my heart to see him stumble from one miss speak to the next.
I now believe that Hillary has more blind ambition than Bill ever did. I kid you not. I believe she knew about Bill's affairs and only cared that he doesn't get busted and damage the Clinton dynasty. Hillary is also not nearly as inheirently intelligent as Bill, she is oportunistic and insincere as hell. Oh, Bill had sincerity nailed down.
-------------------
There was something mentioned about Blair too... I loved Tony Blair and was so ashamed how our joke of a punk President treated him. Eight years of this and Great Britian has not thrown us to the curb. God Bless the Queen!
...at least Thatcher could bitch slap Bush sr. around.
....sorry I digressed big time



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by LOYAL
 


First point: Nobody wants to attack Pakistan. Obama proposes strikes upon terrorists who are hiding on pakistani soil. Frankly Waziristan and the NWFP are out of the control of Pakistan's government... they are controlled by the pashtun tribes who are pro-taliban.

Second point: Pakistan is not serious about fighting terrorism. Sorry, but I refuse to agree with you. ISI has been sheltering Bin Laden since 2001 when he fled to Pakistan. ISI has been sponsoring cross border terrorism into Indian soil not only in Kashmir but also into the heartland of Bombay (Train bombings 2006... I was there at the time).

If Pakistan is really serious about combating terrorists, why not let the USA conduct strikes upon known terrorist positions?
The reason = Musharraf knows that he has lost control of power. ISI and the Pakistani army are known to go rogue (Kargil 1999), and they would side with the Taliban if Musharraf allowed US strikes on Pakistani soil.

The only way I can see terrorism within Pakistan being stopped is if Obama is elected and blasts the bastards hiding in Waziristan to high heaven.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by jpm1602
Your tone Loyal is imperialistic and anti US.


i am not anti US man. Deny ignorance trying to follow that slogan.....

we are front-line partner of US in War on Terror still you think we are against US.... None of 9/11 Hijackers was a Pakistani still we are fighting this war at home, we are suffering more than anybody else... We are the major victim of terrorism.... thousands of people have lost their lives here in Pakistan because of the suicide attacks...

We want to fight terrorism and we are doing so... and our ass is on the line... whatsoever goes wrong in the world is chalked up to us why?

we are literally kissing the ass of US isn't buddy... still we are threatened by every 'naive' politician there to attack us...
and you know whom i am talkin' about



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
If Pakistan is really serious about combating terrorists, why not let the USA conduct strikes upon known terrorist positions?

The only way I can see terrorism within Pakistan being stopped is if Obama is elected and blasts the bastards hiding in Waziristan to high heaven.



Dude, who killed the last high profile Al-Qadea in Pakistan i forgot guy name it was big news ..... US air forces carried out that strike and we just let them do it ..... infact every other day US Air forces enter into wazistan .... there is little made known in the media to avoid frustration among people here in Pakistan...

We are already have given them 'free hand' as long as air strikes are concerned...!!!!

2ndly why don't US give us technology to cope with terroism when it comes F-16 issues no one want us to get our hands to it ... why? We are declared non-Nato Partner of US in War on Terror !!!!

I want all these bastards to be killed in Wazirstan 80% of Pakistani denounce those retarded ... however at what cost ... at the cost of attacks to our major cities where innocent people are killed .... !!!!

it's US that is not serious in cooperating with Pakistan they demand us to do more and but don't help us more in terms of Military cooperation



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 07:21 PM
link   
geez, I am gone just long enough to grab another beer and we are talking about attacking Pakistan!
The U.S. has no intention nor any talk about attacking Pakistan.
( areas that are within Pakistan...hmmm,) but not without the authority or ok from the Pakistan government.
....Loyal, you did get all worked up though. I believe Iraq had the 4th largest military or something like that. Defeating someone in a war and occupation are two entirely different beasts.
Even the CT's would agree that a war with Pakistan is not in anyone's interest. Don't people believe the ISI works with the CIA.......noooooo, I'm not getting sucked into this......
Lets stop talking about this stupid war nonsense. Nobody is starting anything with Pakistan.
You implied that we didn't know that Bush was going to be a war monger before he was President so how do we know about Obama.
Easy.... Bush was a heartless bastard when Gov. of Texas. He was asked by the Pope and numerous others not to execute this one woman...in fact the first woman to be executed since the American Civil War.....and Bush wouldn't even talk to the Pope and joked about " what...do you want me to shed a tear..." so we "KNEW" this guy was a piece of work. He didn't even win the damn election. The Supreme Court gave it to him when they unsurped the Florida Supreme Court for no legitimate purpose....ohhhhhh I neeeeeed toooooo breathhhheeeee.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by LOYAL
 


The US refuse to give Pakistan advanced technology for one simple reason.
Pakistan will not use it against terrorists... they will use it to attack India.

But come on, seriously. Have you ever looked at the record of the ISI? Theyre rogue, they support terrorist groups and train them, they equip them and brainwash them.

Look for yourself and see if ISI is a valid partner in the war against terror:

en.wikipedia.org...

First Pakistan needs to become a democracy. Second it has to demolish ISI.
Only then will I begin to believe that Pakistan is a serious ally in the war against terror.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
But come on, seriously. Have you ever looked at the record of the ISI? Theyre rogue, they support terrorist groups and train them, they equip them and brainwash them.

Look for yourself and see if ISI is a valid partner in the war against terror:


If it wasn't for ISI who would have defeated Russia in Afghanistan man


you guys use us like 'tissue paper' then chalk up everything to us...

when Russia-Afghanistan war was over.. the US left us alone at the mercy of India and Russia ... thanks to China for helping out ....

You guys are very very ' Dis-Loyal'
as i used to say ... Pakistan is best buddy of US in the time of need ... and a terrorist otherwise...

you guys got to learn keep up your promises !!!



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by LOYAL
 


sheesh man, show a little more thinking!

ISI (and CIA for that matter) trained and equipped a group to resist the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan.

Now if the Soviets had controlled Afghanistan, the world would have been an entirely different place.

You know why? Because that little group that the ISI and CIA trained and funded was the goddamn Taliban .

Plus you called me "disloyal"... doubt that applies since Im a) British and b) Indian. I thought you would have guessed by now



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 07:46 PM
link   
What happened to the politics, specifically the Presidential election?

Why are you baiting Loyal? I would be a little pissed if I were him too.

Look what happened to our "friends" in Cambodia after we took off.

We, use and abuse, our government doesn't know the meaning of loyalty.
ever hear of "efficient breach" we run our politics like we run our greedy business' so stop giving Loyal crap when "we" have a bigger load to shovel!
get back to the U.S. election politics. Or was the, "I would vote for Hillary" an opening to talk about war in Pakistan.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by LOYAL

it's US that is not serious in cooperating with Pakistan they demand us to do more and but don't help us more in terms of Military cooperation


Loyal, you are one smart Pakistani.

The U.S. government always makes demands. They demand cooperation, they demand inspections, they demand support, they demand and demand and demand. Don't think that Pakistan is alone though, the American government demands things from anyone, right down to the American citizen.

As for Obama invading Pakistan I really don't know if he will or he won't. You however and all your fellow countrymen have every right to get mad at what Obama said. If a Pakistani running for leadership said they will attack the U.S. because the U.S. didn't grab bin Laden in a hospital before 9-11, i can assure you that many Americans will take that to offense. In fact, you guys should have taken to the streets and asked for a formal U.S. apology for his remark.

As for voting for Hillary or McCain, and Obama for that matter, what a laugh. It is amazing how these guys were pre-selected to run for president.

[edit on 9-5-2008 by wutone]



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Plus you called me "disloyal"... doubt that applies since Im a) British and b) Indian. I thought you would have guessed by now



i swear i had an idea that you re indian from the start of this thread


because no one else talks so deeply about Pakistani politics unless one is a Pakistani or Indian



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Res Ipsa
....Loyal, you did get all worked up though. I believe Iraq had the 4th largest military or something like that.


the only difference is that Iraq did not have weapon of mass destruction however we do have
that's why they got banged by US had they have got WMD US would have not stood a chance



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join