well??? is it true?? you are all a bunch of hypocrates huh?

dont worry I always new you guys were: lol:


White House Won't Rule Out Troops for Pakistan War

By Noah Shachtman March 27, 2009 | 2:08:00 PMCategories: Agony of A-Stan, Perils of Pakistan


President Obama has just laid out his new war strategy. And he's made it clear that the fight is both in Afghanistan and Pakistan. So I asked Dennis McDonough, with the National Security Council: Does that mean U.S. ground forces in Pakistan? Or more drone attacks? "I'm not going to comment on the notions you laid out there," he answered, during a White House conference call with bloggers.

But during a separate press conference, Bruce Reidel, who recently completed a strategy review of the region for the White House, offered some hints. "Thus far, our policy sees Afghanistan and Pakistan as two countries, but one theater of operations for our diplomacy, and one challenge for our overall policy," he said. "We have very concrete proposals for increasing economic assistance to Pakistan, proposals that have already been put forward by the Congress. We're also looking at what we can do on the military side."

Michele Flournoy, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, added, "I certainly believe we are going to be increasing our intelligence focus in this theater, and as opportunities arise that may increase the pace of operations, as well."

Richard Holbrooke, the administration special enoy to the region said of Pakistan: "of all the dilemmas, problems and challenges we face, that's going to be the most daunting, because it's a sovereign country and there is a red line. And the red line is unambiguous and stated publicly by the Pakistani government over and over again: No foreign troops on our soil." Yet I haven't seen anyone in the administration state unambiguously yet that U.S. troops won't go to Pakistan. If anything, they've side-stepped the question.

Draw your own conclusions. But to me, they're saying: Yes, there will be more troops (both human and robotic). We'd just rather not talk about them.

Later in the blogger conference call, Spencer Ackerman asked McDonough about what the President really means by "disrupting" and "defeating" alQaeda. His answers were... well, a little unexpected.

McDonough defined "disrupting" as making sure Osama's pals couldn't carry out attacks in Europe or America any more. The terror cell or cells could still be intact - just impotent. Which is different from how I've imagined a "disrupted " al Qaeda before.
But the really interesting answer was about "defeating" the Osama-ites. Sure, there's a harcorde element that "has to be met by force alone." But for the most part, it's not necessarily about turning them into Predator flambe. Instead, it's about making sure the "the violent, hopeless future offered by Al Qaeda is outshone by different opportunities" in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

As Ackerman points out, "Notice that 'defeat' here is has an ideological meaning, and its primary measurement comes from the perceptions of Afghans and Pakistanis themselves."
[Photo: U.S. Army]

__________________

Hahaha. A grizzly bear with a chainsaw. Now there's a killing machine.

__________________
Why people believe strange things: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T_jw...eature=channel

Where are we?
Mostly too stoned to give a flying F any longer.

__________________
I'd giva ya everything I got . . . for little piece of mind

I'm right here, and believe me, I don't agree with Obamas Afghanistan plan at all. I'm hoping he'll come to his senses sooner than later, but the Afghanistan thing is just wrong.

__________________
Life is good, the water is sweet. The ground keeps moving beneath my feet.

Obama is just .... meh. Too much double talk, not enough virtue.

__________________
Why people believe strange things: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T_jw...eature=channel

Absolutely disagree. He has 100 time the virtue of his predecessor. He is just getting the feel of this thing. I see great things coming out of his administration as long as some looney doesn't take him out.

__________________
Life is good, the water is sweet. The ground keeps moving beneath my feet.

well you can call me a hypocrite all day long and frankly i don't give a shit. we didn't need to go to war. its just something bush wanted, possibly to gain control of foreign oil. and it seems obama is backing some of bush's policies. i don't pretend to know the real reason that we are in a war but i can bet it was stupid.

__________________
A friend with weed is a friend Indeed

He said this 'war' was going to be over. He lied. He said he'd "withdraw troops immediately". He sent more troops instead!

As a humanist I find war unacceptable. And I disapprove of his actions. I find his lack of intellectual response to the number one question posed to him(on his own website) unacceptable.

Life is too precious to kill and to die for such petty reasons.

__________________
Why people believe strange things: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T_jw...eature=channel

Do you remember the campaign this is exactly what he said he was going to do in Afghanistan.

__________________

He never said that, but don't let the facts get in your way

__________________