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.

 

Ron Paul: U.S. May Try to Occupy Pakistan

page: 1
21
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2011 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Ron Paul: U.S. May Try to Occupy Pakistan


www.rawstory.com

GOP 2012 hopeful Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) thinks U.S. troops will soon be on the ground for an occupation of Pakistan — and he said so on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" Wednesday morning.

Paul called America's relationship with Pakistan "an impossible situation," where the U.S. hailed both its friendship with and suspicion of the country.

"I think we are going to be in Pakistan, I think that's going to be our next occupation, and I fear it," Paul said. "It's ridiculous...
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 18 2011 @ 11:26 PM
link   
Well folks, not sure I know what to even say on this. But if Ron's intuitions are correct, and the US tries this stupidity, amongst all the others, how could an invasion of Pakistan POSSIBLY end well?

Pakistan has nuclear weapons.

I repeat. Pakistan has nuclear weapons.

Which is why I honestly believe that Ron, bless his heart, this time is wrong. The US has never attacked a country with nuclear weapons that I can recall, because frankly it knows better.

The raid to get Bin Laden was, and is questionable in itself. I still don't even believe it. But a ground invasion?

:shk:

Nope. Ronny, I think it just can't be. But would it be surprising? Not really. The stupidity of the US government knows no boundaries other than countries that HAVE nuclear weapons. The buck stops there.

But Ron is correct I believe on the rest of what he said. The policies in Pakistan have divided the populace and caused intense "blowback" already. And I believe he is right in that the US should have worked with the Pakistani government instead to get Bin Laden and have him arrested.

It is not often I have ever even minutely disagreed with something Ron Paul says. This is the first time. But his fear of this kind of fiasco is noted. Not good.

www.rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Although I agree with you, it's also speculated that a nuclear war is what some are pushing for..

Who really knows ??



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Pakistan's weapons would be unable to reach the US. They might nuke India though and then Pakistan would cease to exist. I honestly would not be surprised to see Kabul or other places in Afghanistan go up too. It would still end the same way, with Pakistan being made an example.

I'm sure we have plans to deploy systems to protect India though. They may not stop all of the warheads, but they will stop most.

If we go into Pakistan it will be a joint operation with India. Something they tried to do in November 2001. We were too stupid at the time to realize India was right all along.
edit on 18/5/11 by MikeboydUS because: m



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Many on here have said the exact same thing, it doesn't make him a 'Prophet'

it's not hard to come to that conclusions with the way events have been shaping



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Does Pakistan have oil? Then yes we're going in. The whole Middle East is the target. If you have black gold then here we come.

The U.S. is sanctioning Syria for the killing of their people by their leader. How about the Ivory Coast massacre? Why hasn't more been done about that. Oh yea, they only export chocolate.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Ron Pual is off his rocker on this one. No one is talking about invading and occupying Pakistan. It is a cheap tool to use some concocted scenario as a political tool. This is one of the worst cases of a strawman that I have seen.



A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.


Libya is not Iraq is not Afghanistan is not Pakistan.
Source

Mod Note : Posting work written by others.– Please Review This Link.

Please include a source link for material from external sources .
edit on 21-5-2011 by xpert11 because: Mod Note , add external source tags , add source link and mod note

edit on 21-5-2011 by xpert11 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by TheLieWeLive
 


Its not a matter of oil. There are many other things with value.

Besides if it turns out like Iraq, where China buys up the oil fields, or Afghanistan, where China bought up the mines, whats the point of resources.

If we go into Pakistan, it will be out of vengeance and anger. I imagine there are some people at the Pentagon whose blood is boiling and fuming over the ISI protecting Bin Laden.
edit on 18/5/11 by MikeboydUS because: an



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Yup its basically written in his book, Liberty Defined...

Blowback is the whole reason we have a war on terrorism... we keep pushing them till they push back, then we push even harder, and it keeps going on and on and on...

Not much more we can do than "hope" about this situation, which I think "hope" is a lost cause... how about act? Sadly I dont have the answers on how to act to change the situation... Voting Ron Paul in would be awesome, but I cant say I believe voting actually matters sadly... he has alot of good visions, and alot of heart, which follows the rules our founding fathers based our whole country upon... but TPTB are powerful, more powerful than even freedom itself these days...



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by morder1
 


Its not simply blowback. They don't sit there like rocks not moving till someone pushes them. They are human and humans are greedy, violent, and selfish creatures. They have lashed out, we lash back, they lash out, and on an on. From the time that the Eastern Roman Empire fell, to the Battle of Tours, to the Crusades, to the fall of Constantinople, to the Reconquista, to the Siege of Vienna, and on and on.

We didn't start the fire.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Setting foot in Pakistan would be suicide. They're in bed with China and Russia. I don't think anyone's that crazy to take the bulls horns in the behind.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by TheLieWeLive
 


Its not a matter of oil. There are many other things with value.


edit on 18/5/11 by MikeboydUS because: an


More valuable than oil is right now? Name one. Oil makes up almost everything around you right now.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   
We're already occupying Pakistan, it just isn't a focus.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


Mike, do you think that the US could attempt something like this totally with conventional weapons, betting on a Pakistani reluctance to use nuclear weapons and incite the US into a nuclear war?

I could see the military strategists take this approach, and risk it.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by TheLieWeLive
 


Lithium. Cadmium. Titanium. Precious metals. Precious stones. Uranium. Tons of minerals, metals, etc.

An ounce of gold is well over $1000 an ounce. Meanwhile a 55 gallon drum of crude oil is $90.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


Mike, do you think that the US could attempt something like this totally with conventional weapons, betting on a Pakistani reluctance to use nuclear weapons and incite the US into a nuclear war?

I could see the military strategists take this approach, and risk it.



Someone at the Pentagon, probably favors that view, but I imagine if it really does turn into a real war, we will be ready for any contingency possible, including nuclear ones.

I also imagine if push really comes to shove though, we will take out Pakistan's nukes first, in the same way we took out Bin Laden, high tech black operations. By the time the air raid sirens sounded over Islamabad, their entire nuclear arsenal would be crippled.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


Hmm. Well I found it curious that you mentioned their inability to hit the US, but what about attacking forces in Iraq or Afghanistan with nukes....It would seem the airfields would be high priority targets- as those immediately threaten them the most, no?



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


I'm sure the Pentagon would expect them to try to hit Kabul or elsewhere in Afghanistan.

They would pay dearly for it though, even if we intercepted the missiles or the warheads were duds.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Strategically speaking the U.S. could cripple Pakistans low end nuclear arsenal by using low yeild tactical nuclear weapons that could be fired from stealth aircraft, nuclear submarines and drone aircraft. First on the list would be the crippling of pakistans early warning radar systems that could track incoming low flying missles such as tomahawk cruise missiles carrying kiloton range warheads. Specially designed EMP nuclear weapons (weapons designed to have the highest EMP impact) would be detonated high up in the atmosphere to cripple communications across the region thus throwing Pakistans chain of command into complete chaos.

Pakistan does have a nuclear weapons capability but it's extremely inferior and of a very low yield to that of the U.S. and Russia's asrenals, ESPECIALLY the delivery systems that Pakistan have developed. If Pakistan ever decided to to try a "nuclear sneak attack" on U.S. forces in the region, ONE single U.S. nuclear submarine could literally destroy the entire country of Pakistan in about 15 minutes.
edit on 19-5-2011 by Jocko Flocko because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   
The onlything I have ever heard with regards to US military troop presence in Pakistan was contingeny plans to secure their nuclear weapons if a civil war or some other change took place that would place those items into the hands of people who might sell or use them against the US or its allies.

A ground invasion of Pakistan is about as stupid as a ground invasion of Canada. It serves no purpose, it would completely over extend our already over extended forces. I wont even touch on the financial ramifications, but I would point out that to date, President Obama seems to prefer the use of drone strikes, instead of the military.

If this is from an intelligence brief, Ron Paul should be held accountible for his words on TV. He may not have all the facts, and it would be wreckless to make this accusation.




top topics



 
21
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join