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.

 

US military may escalate 'war on terror' by striking deeper into Pakistan

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   

US military may escalate


www.guardian.co.uk

Washington is considering expanding its controversial policy of missile strikes and commando raids deeper inside Pakistan, according to reports this morning.

"The United States would be pouring petrol on the 'war on terror' by these methods," "The United States has no message of peace for the world, they can only talk through arms and armaments."

Islamabad complains that the attacks, from unmanned "drone" aircraft operated by the CIA, are a flagrant breach of Pakistani sovereignty.
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 18-3-2009 by ModernAcademia]




posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Sending 17,000 troops into Afghanistan and continuing the drone bombing of Pakistan is hardly a change in policy.

I hope that this is not true since at the moment it's just speculation.

This is not ending the war in Iraq, no, this is expanding the war into the entire middle east. And for some people to think this is a route towards peace must need their heads examined.

www.guardian.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Its not surprising at all. For two years leading up to the election, Barack Obama was signaling an intent to escalate combat operations against targets in Pakistan. On that note, I can't really criticize him; he's just doing what he said he would.

On the other hand, its also one of the major reasons that I could not and did not vote for him. Such expansion threatens the tenuous stability of the Pakistani government and the last thing anyone needs is for that government to collapse and for their nuclear arsenal to fall into even more dangerous hands.

As you said, it certainly IS NOT the route towards peace and stability in that region.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Well, President Obama did say he would send troops and missiles into that region. Looks like he is keeping his campaign promise on this one.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
I'm confused.....the Right Wingers (read Dick Cheney) were proudly proclaiming that Obama was weak on protecting the USA from terrorism, yet now that he is authorizing pro-active missions against the Taliban, he is STILL getting critiqued!

I seem to remember similar stuff when Clinton ordered attacks in various countries. He was reviled---think of 'Black Hawk Down'....

yet, Bush and his 'team' get a pass????

Ya know, I've been on ATS since 2007, and I do not remember seeing as much 'bush-bashing' as I've seen 'obama-bashing' since he clinched the nomination.

BTW, for the fiercely Right-Wing out there, Bill O-Reilly recently announced that the so-called 'War on Terror' is over. HIS idol, GWB, god of all gods, effectively neutralized the Taliban. Just ask Billo, he'll tell ya!

yeah, right.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Obama has drooling obamaManiacs, people deeply in love with him
Bush never had that, if anything he had/has the opposite

that's the difference
no need to really bash bush, he's maybe the most hated man in history



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



.the Right Wingers (read Dick Cheney) were proudly proclaiming that Obama was weak on protecting the USA from terrorism, yet now that he is authorizing pro-active missions against the Taliban, he is STILL getting critiqued!


If you really think that Obama is protecting America from terrorism by sending million dollars missiles on random spots, you got another thing coming. All he is doing is shaking up the hornet nest and giving extremist a valid reason to continue coming after us. Seems that diplomacy under Obama isn't much different than Bush.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Modern, I'm old enough to remember the US Election of 1992.

Clinton, if you will, had 'drooling Clintonites', if you'll recall. (according to Right-Wingers)

As to Bush Jr.--- he had his rabid fans as well.

It seems disengenuous to label ANY devotee of ANY political candidate as 'drooling' in their admiration.

I saw more crony-ism and genuflecting to Bush Jr....because they HAD to, in order to hide his incredible flaws.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I don't know what board you were reading, then, because there has been an enormous number of Bush-bashing posts around here for years. Just as with Obama, some of them were deserved, some of them not.

For the record, I have always been very uneasy about these attacks within Pakistan's borders, whether it has been Bush or Obama ordering them.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join