HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » No Mr. President, Pakista...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 10:28 AM

 

No Mr. President, Pakistan doesn't tacitly agree to your unilateral, terrorist drone attacks.

"Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry has bluntly rejected claims by the Obama administration that it tacitly approves CIA drone strikes on its territory, saying that ‘drone attacks are illegal, counterproductive, in contravention of international law and a violation of Pakistani sovereignty.’

The remarks came after the Wall Street Journal revealed that US claims of legality appear built on a monthly fax from the CIA to its ISI counterpart which goes unanswered, and on Pakistan’s apparent acceptance of ’no fly zones’ over the tribal areas which enable the drones to operate.

Islamabad’s foreign minister Hina Rabbani Khar also waded into the fray, telling an audience in New York that ’What the drones are trying to achieve, we may not disagree… If they’re going for terrorists — we do not disagree. But we have to find ways which are lawful, which are legal. The use of unilateral strikes on Pakistani territory is illegal.’"
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/09/28

Where does anybody get the idea that no response to a request is actually an affirmative response? The US is using duplicity and lies in order to conduct its War of Terror in Pakistan.

The funny thing is, if this were occurring under Bush, people would be screaming for his head, and for somebody to put a halt to this madness. But under Obama, hardly a word is spoken, and yet the death of innocents, the terrorizing of an entire province continues unabated. The hypocrisy would be stunning if it hadn't become so commonplace over the past three years.

95 replies, 5095 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 95 replies Author Time Post
Reply No Mr. President, Pakistan doesn't tacitly agree to your unilateral, terrorist drone attacks. (Original post)
MadHound Sep 2012 OP
progressivebydesign Sep 2012 #1
MadHound Sep 2012 #3
NightWatcher Sep 2012 #5
MadHound Sep 2012 #9
DonCoquixote Sep 2012 #35
MadHound Sep 2012 #49
DonCoquixote Sep 2012 #89
MadHound Sep 2012 #93
DonCoquixote Sep 2012 #94
ProSense Sep 2012 #4
alcibiades_mystery Sep 2012 #8
MadHound Sep 2012 #10
DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #32
fascisthunter Sep 2012 #88
DirkGently Sep 2012 #95
ProSense Sep 2012 #2
MadHound Sep 2012 #6
ProSense Sep 2012 #7
MadHound Sep 2012 #11
msanthrope Sep 2012 #13
MadHound Sep 2012 #21
msanthrope Sep 2012 #28
MadHound Sep 2012 #50
msanthrope Sep 2012 #53
MadHound Sep 2012 #56
ProSense Sep 2012 #48
MadHound Sep 2012 #51
msanthrope Sep 2012 #12
MadHound Sep 2012 #22
msanthrope Sep 2012 #34
MadHound Sep 2012 #52
Hippo_Tron Sep 2012 #67
SilveryMoon Sep 2012 #69
Hippo_Tron Sep 2012 #70
SilveryMoon Sep 2012 #77
NCTraveler Sep 2012 #91
msanthrope Sep 2012 #14
Tarheel_Dem Sep 2012 #64
Tierra_y_Libertad Sep 2012 #15
OldDem2012 Sep 2012 #16
MadHound Sep 2012 #23
Tarheel_Dem Sep 2012 #65
MadHound Sep 2012 #84
great white snark Sep 2012 #17
Robb Sep 2012 #39
MadHound Sep 2012 #54
Robb Sep 2012 #71
MadHound Sep 2012 #86
Robb Sep 2012 #92
metalbot Sep 2012 #18
MadHound Sep 2012 #24
ieoeja Sep 2012 #42
Skidmore Sep 2012 #19
MadHound Sep 2012 #25
Blue_Roses Sep 2012 #20
MadHound Sep 2012 #27
SidDithers Sep 2012 #26
msanthrope Sep 2012 #29
emulatorloo Sep 2012 #30
morningfog Sep 2012 #75
scheming daemons Sep 2012 #31
emulatorloo Sep 2012 #33
Tierra_y_Libertad Sep 2012 #36
JVS Sep 2012 #38
Tierra_y_Libertad Sep 2012 #40
hughee99 Sep 2012 #37
grantcart Sep 2012 #41
ieoeja Sep 2012 #44
MadHound Sep 2012 #58
grantcart Sep 2012 #66
MadHound Sep 2012 #85
grantcart Sep 2012 #90
woo me with science Sep 2012 #43
ieoeja Sep 2012 #45
woo me with science Sep 2012 #46
ieoeja Sep 2012 #63
ProSense Sep 2012 #47
leftstreet Sep 2012 #55
ProSense Sep 2012 #60
leftstreet Sep 2012 #57
MadHound Sep 2012 #59
Hippo_Tron Sep 2012 #68
dionysus Sep 2012 #72
Egnever Sep 2012 #80
DerekG Sep 2012 #83
ohheckyeah Sep 2012 #61
morningfog Sep 2012 #76
stevenleser Sep 2012 #62
MineralMan Sep 2012 #73
tritsofme Sep 2012 #74
mike_c Sep 2012 #78
Egnever Sep 2012 #81
Egnever Sep 2012 #79
MadHound Sep 2012 #87
lovebird07 Sep 2012 #82

Response to MadHound (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 10:31 AM

1. Oh brother.. it's clown car time again on DU.. just in time for the election.

Happens every time. Sorry.. Nader isn't running this time. Can you come back after November??? We're trying to win a fucking election that affects the lives of our parents, and kids, and grandkids.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressivebydesign (Reply #1)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 10:35 AM

3. Sure, just a few dozen more innocents will be killed in Pakistan by then,

 

What's the value of a few dozen dead Pakistanis when compared to getting the president reelected.

Thank you for providing a perfect example of the hypocrisy I was speaking of in the OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #3)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 10:38 AM

5. How many more innocents will be killed if Mitt and crew are elected?

Iranians?
Syrians?
Pakistani?

Lets re-elect Obama and keep focus for a few more weeks, then we can get back to the gnashing of teeth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightWatcher (Reply #5)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 10:42 AM

9. And do you think Obama, or any other politician for that matter,

 

Will listen to such criticism after they've gotten the votes they need and want? Given the past history of this conundrum, the answer is no.

And frankly, I never think that it is right to put the death of innocents on the back burner, especially due to an election. The fact that you and others think that it is OK to do so speaks to a sad lack of morals on your part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #9)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 01:23 PM

35. so

what would you do if your actions put Mitt in the White House?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #35)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 04:34 PM

49. What actions are you referring to?

 

If you're saying that my criticism of the president on an anonymous political chat board that has less than 200,000 members is going to influence the outcome of the election, I think that you are giving more far more credit to this place than what it deserves.

If you are making a snide inference that I'm going to vote for Romney, you're wrong, and your actions in such inference is beyond disgusting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #49)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:52 AM

89. Do You I think you a romney voter no?

Do I think you do nto understand the way actions like yours could HELP elect Romney, yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #89)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 11:35 AM

93. I think you are grossly inflating what words of criticism

 

On an obscure, anonymous political chatboard can do. Let's be generous and say this place has 300,000 followers. That means I might reach one tenth of one percent of the entire population.

Besides, the fact of the matter is that the one time that a politician is most susceptible to changing course is during election season, when he actually needs something from the general public, namely our votes.

Question, why are you writing like Yoda on a bender?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #93)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 12:15 PM

94. nice cheap insult

My keybard is currently being tamed, as it has a few sticky keys. That being said, there are ways to challenge a poltician,especially with money, which all of them need. However, in light of the damage done in 2000, anybody that says that they willnot vote for Obama is voting for Romney, whether they like it or not. It is not a matter of politics, but Mathematics.

If a third party is to emerge,it will need to win a bunch of offices downstream of the White House: governships, senate seats. That is daunting, but if Jesse Ventura can become a governor, it is not impossible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressivebydesign (Reply #1)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 10:37 AM

4. It's like a never ending

attempt to take quotes out of context to support "Obama is a war criminal"

Pakistan objects to the civilian deaths, they support going after terrorists.

In the case of the drone strikes, "it is about choosing to win the battle at the cost of the war. These are battles. You get one terrorist, two terrorists, fine. But are you winning the war?"

"What is more important is to win the war," she added.

http://post.jagran.com/pakistan-supports-drone-attacks-hina-rabbani-khar-1348805759

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressivebydesign (Reply #1)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 10:40 AM

8. Some people are getting very angry that they won't have their "One Termer I Told You So" moment

You can tell from their increasingly unhinged tone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #8)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 10:44 AM

10. Actually, if you go back to my previous posts on this election,

 

I've always stated that Obama should win reelection, that this was his election to lose. While all you folks were wailing and worrying about reelection, I was confident in it.

Any other baseless stupidity you want to contribute?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressivebydesign (Reply #1)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 01:10 PM

32. It Reminds Me Of A Great Joe Louis Anecdote

Joe Louis was asked how could he fight for a country that treated his people so badly. Said Louis, "Ain't nothin' wrong with this country that Hitler can fix.

To paraphrase the Brown Bomber "Ain't nothing wrong with our foreign policy Willard Romney can fix."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressivebydesign (Reply #1)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 11:43 PM

88. you truly sound like a meat head

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressivebydesign (Reply #1)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 12:34 PM

95. Clown cars often contain partisan robots. Everything isn't about the fucking campaign.


People who actually care at all about Obama or the Democratic party probably recognize that killing 50 innocents for every supposed militant, and the claiming the right to assassinate U.S. citizens without a trial advances no one's cause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 10:33 AM

2. Pakistan supports drone attacks: Hina Rabbani Khar

Pakistan supports drone attacks: Hina Rabbani Khar

New York: Pakistan supports objective behind US drone strikes over its territory, but it should be carried out in manner that is lawful and not counterproductive, Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar said on Thursday.

Khar said Pakistan does not disagree with the drones being used to go after terrorists.

"What the drones are trying to achieve, we may not disagree. We do not disagree. If they're going for terrorists -- we do not disagree," the minister said.

"But we have to find ways which are lawful, which are legal and not counterproductive," Khar said.

- more -

http://post.jagran.com/pakistan-supports-drone-attacks-hina-rabbani-khar-1348805759

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #2)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 10:38 AM

6. Funny how you provide a quote that is in my OP as some sort of defense.

 

"But we have to find ways which are lawful, which are legal and not counterproductive,"

And apparently what you don't get is that Pakistani officials are stating that what is currently being done now with drones aren't legal, and are apparently counterproductive.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #6)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 10:40 AM

7. "Khar said Pakistan does not disagree with the drones being used to go after terrorists."

Period!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #7)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 10:46 AM

11. No, this is what Khar actually said,

 

Khar, speaking at the Asia Society in New York, said she accepted the US government’s reasons for the onslaught, but called the strategy short-sighted.

“What the drones are trying to achieve, we may not disagree. We do not disagree. If they’re going for terrorists — we do not disagree,” she said.

“But we have to find ways which are lawful, which are legal.” “The use of unilateral strikes on Pakistani territory is illegal,” she said.

“It is illegal and it is unlawful.” Asked during her address to the Asia Society why polls find that anti-American sentiment in Pakistan is among the world’s highest, Khar answered with one word: “Drones.
http://dawn.com/2012/09/27/pakistan-backs-drones-aim-not-method-khar/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #11)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 10:54 AM

13. And yet, they still take our money. Khar knows the dance--the ruling party accepts USA money,

and whips up anti-American sentiment in Pakistan so they can't be accused of being lackeys to Washington.

And meanwhile, the drones happen, and the Pakistani government looks away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #13)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 12:15 PM

21. So you think it is OK to kill innocents and install an era of terror in Waziristan,

 

Just because Pakistan takes our money? Wow.

Pakistan really can't do that much other than file complaints, not with the largest military machine in the world right in their backyard. What, you think they should fire a couple of nukes at American forces in order to back up their complaints?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #21)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 12:58 PM

28. OK is a fairly puerile word, indicating a facile dichotomy of good vs bad.

I think the entire situation is far more complex than the simple label of "OK."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #28)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 04:35 PM

50. Way to try and tap dance around my question.

 

Care for a second shot at it, one that actually answers the question this time rather than parsing semantics?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #50)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 04:39 PM

53. I invite you to ask better questions. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #53)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 04:42 PM

56. Why? You obviously aren't going to provide a straight answer to anything I ask,

 

You never do. Rather, you tapdance around the question, and if all else fails, resort to ad hominems and personal attacks. You don't get to answer the questions that you wished were asked, but rather the question at hand. So, are you actually going to answer the question, or just continue your pattern of avoidance and annoyance?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #11)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 03:41 PM

48. “What the drones are trying to achieve, we may not disagree. We do not disagree."

No matter how the words are parsed or taken out of context, Pakistans concern is the civilian casualties, not that drones are killing terrorists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #48)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 04:37 PM

51. Speaing of taking out of context,

 

"But we have to find ways which are lawful, which are legal. The use of unilateral strikes on Pakistani territory is illegal.’

Care to address that, or are you also going to tap dance around trying to parse semantics?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 10:52 AM

12. If they were really outraged, they'd stop taking our money. And if Bush had done this early

it might have prevented an escalation of troops to Afghanistan.

Let me be clear--if Mr. Bush had decided to drone strike Tora Bora and the escape routes into Pakistan, there would have been no need for a massive buildup in Afghanistan, and no war in Iraq.

Stop berating the President for cleaning up Bush's fuck-ups.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #12)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 12:17 PM

22. Wow, the hypocrisy of your post is stunning,

 

Really.

This isn't cleaning up Bush's fuckups, al Qaeda is gone from the region, bin Laden is dead. This is simply more war designed to secure more profits for the MIC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #22)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 01:11 PM

34. No--Bush failed to stabilize Afghanistan. Look at a map. You don't

stabilize Afghanistan without Warziristan controlled. It's not like anyone's securing that border.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #34)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 04:39 PM

52. As, so killing innocents and terrorizing an entire province is how you secure that border,

 

Glad you're not in charge of foreign policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #34)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 08:02 PM

67. Why is that we need to stabilize Afghanistan, other than to save face?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hippo_Tron (Reply #67)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 08:21 PM

69. I would think to make sure the country...

does not get "taken over" by or give aid to terrorists organizations.

Of course that's assuming if it's possible to even stabilize Afghanistan

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SilveryMoon (Reply #69)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 08:31 PM

70. Terrorist organizations will just get aid from elsehwere

Its already happened. We bomb Afghanistan, they go to Pakistan. We bomb Pakistan, they go to Yemen. We bomb Yemen, they go to the next place.

The world is too big of a place to kill every terrorist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hippo_Tron (Reply #70)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 08:56 PM

77. I agree.

Like you said, we stabilize Afghan either by bombs or money, terrorists just go somewhere and the process begins anew. I'm just trying to think how politicians and the military would make it look important to stabilize that place.

Oh and they is a couple trillion dollars in gold in the Afghan mountains so I'm sure some people want their hands on that and don't care how much tax payer money or soldier lives are wasted

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/263023/20111207/gold-worth-1-trillion-buried-afghanistan-mountains.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #34)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:27 AM

91. Everyone fails when trying to stabilize Afghanistan.

Do you really think our current military endeavors are going to stabilize that area?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 10:55 AM

14. Those polls are looking pretty dire, eh? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #14)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 05:37 PM

64. Ding! Ding! Ding! It's getting more frantic by the day, and it's predictable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 11:08 AM

15. But..but..the drone killings are the only way to win..er..not lose..er...cover our defeat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 11:12 AM

16. Just a reminder...

...that Pakistan harbored Osama Bin Laden for many years, and continues to allow Al Qaeda to operate from within their borders. As far as "legality" is concerned, harboring the terrorists responsible for 9/11 is a much greater crime.

Personally speaking, and as a former vet, I would rather place unmanned drones at risk than our troops who have done more than their fair share during two Middle Eastern wars.

By the way, the monthly fax from the CIA to the ISI is worded in such a way that the ISI can object at any time to turn off the unmanned strikes. Until they make an objection, the strikes will continue.

There are plenty of real issues all around us....focus on them and you'll get a lot less flak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #16)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 12:19 PM

23. So you're an eye for an eye person, eh.

 

What happens when the whole world goes blind?

You do realize that this is an ally's sovereignty we're violating, don't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #23)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 05:39 PM

65. Then they should stop taking our money, and kick us the hell out. It's that simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #65)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 11:28 PM

84. Kick us the hell out?

 

Other than unleashing their nukes, there is little Pakistan can do to kick us out. What, you want them to drop the bomb?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 11:12 AM

17. I hope you're putting this much effort into getting your candidate elected.

Hope so, I would think being negative all the time would take a toll.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to great white snark (Reply #17)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 01:54 PM

39. You drop an "r"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #39)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 04:40 PM

54. Are you saying I'm a troll?

 

If so, at least have the cojones to come out and say it straight up rather than trying to hide behind cute wordplay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #54)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 08:33 PM

71. Honestly, I just haven't made up my mind yet.

I was curious if the other poster had, because I value his opinion. I've already heard yours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #71)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 11:34 PM

86. Wow, eleven years on this place and you haven't made your mind up yet,

 

That's really a shame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #86)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:32 AM

92. See, that's trolling.

When half the replies in your thread are you being antagonistic to people who dared disagree? When your own posts are an effort to further antagonize and, as a bonus, needlessly kick your own thread? News flash, that's trolling. You're doing it.

Does that make you a troll? That's the interesting question.

While I think on this, you should kick your own thread some more. I probably won't care in an hour.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 11:13 AM

18. Pakistan could shoot down our drones if they wanted to

Drones aren't exactly radar invisible fast moving objects. If Pakistan were serious about stopping drone attacks, they could do so militarily. They've got over 400 combat aircraft. Shooting down drones found in Pakistani airspace would send an unambiguous message that drone attacks aren't acceptable.

Call me cynical, but I think the Pakistani government DOES approve of the drone attacks, in the sense that some of them do kill people that they'd like to have dead, and they get political leverage to use against the US over civilian deaths. Drone attacks for them are pretty much win-win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to metalbot (Reply #18)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 12:21 PM

24. Well, frankly, I think that Pakistan is being the bigger country about this,

 

After all, they are trying to work this out diplomatically, not with force. They have filed formal complaints, and even closed down the US supply route through their country for awhile in order to make their point. Of course, they could resort to the military option, sure. But they also realize that it would simply give the largest military force in the world an excuse to come down on them like a ton of bricks. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #24)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 02:19 PM

42. Exactly the reason we occupy Iran today.


Once they took our drone they gave us the perfect excuse to invade. Iran should have taken the Pakistani route of saying a lot to appease their own people while secretly smiling and looking the other way.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 11:16 AM

19. Yeah, let's get that Romney-Ryan thing on. I want to see how

riled up you get when Romney and Netanyahu start lobbing bombs into Iran just because.

I have news for you. As long as there has been wars, sadly enough, innocents are killed. Are you as worked up over Pakistan harboring Al Qaeda? They killed innocents too.

I'm sick of the endless circular arguments which never include constructive suggestions for solutions to get us to diplomatic solutions, only endless recrimination. The wars in the ME are built on mountains of recriminations throughout history. No one lets the past go and looks to what the future could be.

AND Bush should have been tried as a war criminal alongside of Cheney in an ideal world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skidmore (Reply #19)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 12:25 PM

25. Well, I happen to think that stopping these illegal drone attacks would go a long way to help,

 

After all, blowback is a bitch now, as we have found out time and again. Just how endeared do you think the Pakistani people are going to be towards Americans who are essentially conducting a terrorist action against them?

Pssst, Romney has nothing to do with this. And if you look at my past posting during the Bush administration, you'll find I was just as vociferous a critic of their military policy as I am of Obama's, more so in fact.

The thing is, I'm anti-war all the time, not just when a 'Pug is in the top spot. I don't believe in that sort of hypocrisy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 11:45 AM

20. You need to read more about this before going off half-cocked

because, while I find the killing of innocent people horrific, so does our president, as stated here:

"Obama was understandably disturbed. How could this have happened? The president had vowed to change America’s message to the Muslim world, and to forge a “new partnership based on mutual respect and mutual interest.” Yet here he was, during his first week in the White House, presiding over the accidental killing of innocent Muslims. As Obama briskly walked into the Situation Room the following day, his advisers could feel the tension rise. “You could tell from his body language that he was not a happy man,” recalled one recalled one participant."

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/08/10/obama-2009-strikes/
We do not have the luxury of knowing the intel and what motivates these things, just like we didn't know bin Laden's courier was being watched for 8 months before he was killed. By reacting to what we think we know is irresponsible and dangerous.

Also, when it is ever reported that militants take out our guys as stated here:

"Cluster of strikes

On December 29 2009 a joint al Qaeda-Pakistan Taliban operation struck at the heart of the CIA’s drone activities. A triple agent penetrated a secret drone base in Khost, Afghanistan. Seven CIA agents, including the base commander, were among the dead. The Agency responded in the coming weeks with multiple strikes across Waziristan – at the time, the heaviest wave of bombings ever seen. On this one day alone there were four attacks. Bureau analysis shows that at least 35 people died – including 'six possible civilians. "

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/08/10/obama-2010-strikes/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Roses (Reply #20)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 12:30 PM

27. If our president finds this to be so horrific, why doesn't he put an immediate end to it?

 

After all, he is the CinC, he could stop this madness tomorrow. But nope, he just keeps the drones flying. Language, body posture, whatever, that doesn't really tell you how remorseful a person is, actions are what count. And Obama's actions in this matter speak far louder than his words.

Oh, and why do you think there was that strike against the secret drone base? Oh, yeah, because that is where the drones that are terrorizing and killing the Pakistani people are coming from. If some adjacent country started flying drone missions into the US in order to wreak havoc, death and destruction, I would certainly be launching raids on those drone bases, wouldn't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 12:27 PM

26. Oh look, it's this thread again...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #26)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 12:59 PM

29. Droning on and on, right? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #29)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 01:07 PM

30. Romney/Ryan enabling

Obama's poll numbers are too good. Must do something about that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #29)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 08:42 PM

75. Cute.

Innocents being killed is so wit inspiring.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 01:07 PM

31. Damn... the Obama poll numbers must be through the roof today.....


MadHound is getting shriller and shriller.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Reply #31)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 01:11 PM

33. The more people who see Romney/Ryan for what the are

The more a handful DU'ers scramble to do "damage control."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 01:26 PM

36. Neither does most of the rest of the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #36)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 01:48 PM

38. India seems cool with it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Reply #38)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 01:56 PM

40. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

I'd well imagine the Pakistanis would approve drone strikes on India.

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Mohandas K. Gandhi

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 01:30 PM

37. Sounds like a good topic to discuss on November 7th, but

we shouldn't be wasting our time talking about our country violating other countries' air space with drones and killing SUSPECTED terrorists (and a bunch of civilians too). Those sort of things aren't nearly as important as the big issues like how fast Paul Ryan ran a marathon, what might be in Romney's tax records, what Ann Romney does with her time, or Scott Brown staffers making offensive sounds and gestures. Those are the issues we need to be talking about now, because they are important. Even on a Democratic web site where we know the people here are going to support Obama, and are capable of intelligently discussing both the good and bad aspects of the Obama Administration's policies, we still shouldn't be wasting our time on such trivial matters when there's these important issues that need to be discussed.

Drones bombing foreign nationals in foreign lands because we SUSPECT they're terrorists and we BELIEVE we've got the right person and we HOPE we don't kill too many civilians in the process is the sort of issue that's only important in election season when the repukes are in office.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 02:17 PM

41. I know that you want to have a broader discussion on drones, and that is fine but


you seem to be unaware of the meaning of tacit approval.

If a country is giving 'tacit' approval to something it is understood to mean that it is not giving explicit approval. In that case the Foriegn Ministry is going to make public ruffle of feathers for domestic consumption that it does not agree.

If you want to know if they in fact give 'tacit' you might look at whether or not Pakistan allows cross border supply of US mission in Afghanistan.

In fact after a period of retaliation for the cross border shooting and closing the border Pakistan recently signed an expanded agreement allowing for a free flow of goods to Afghanistan through Pakistan.

http://article.wn.com/view/2012/08/01/Pakistan_allows_Nato_supplies_to_Afghanistan_secures_1_billi/

So yes Pakistan does tacitly agree (and they have reasons why they want the drones) to the drone missions.

You are now free to have the broader discussion on the efficacy and ethics of drone missions if you want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #41)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 02:50 PM

44. Best reply in thread.


I figured MadHound was only pretending misunderstanding. But it could have been an honest mistake. Bad on my part for making assumptions to other's motives.

MadHound's previous thousand anti-Obama posts should not be construed to mean that this was a deliberately misleading post.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #41)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 04:47 PM

58. I wouldn't call repeated calls by Pakistani officials to stop the drone attacks tacit approval,

 

Nor would I call the closing of the US supply route to Afghanistan, through Pakistan, in protest of the drone attacks tacit approval. Nor would I call the language of the Pakistani officials in this article tacit approval. What is it going to take for it to dawn on you that Pakistan, in no way shape or form, including tacitly, approves of these drone attacks? A nuclear bomb dropped on our soldiers? Would that convince you, or would some measure short of that convince you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #58)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 07:34 PM

66. Having negotiated many deals with officials in the Pakistani Govt and other Gvts in the region


I have a professional and personal experience between the difference of PR releases that reflect the policy that the government would like to have and the tacit approval of policies that they found necessary.

If you think that public pronouncements of the foriegn ministry are not simply an effort to project an image of control over the soveriegnty of the country then, well there really isn't much to talk about.

There is a very strong interest by the Pakistanis to use drones.

If you don't understand that then you don't understand the deep committment to wipe out all of those that had a hand in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto and all of the various leaders of radical groups that would follow in those footsteps.

You have a very condescending and laughable perspective of the Pakistanis. Do you really think that the drones would go one if they were really against it? Do you think that they are powerless little children.

So to answer your rather petulantly phrased question



What is it going to take for it to dawn on you that Pakistan, in no way shape or form, including tacitly, approves of these drone attacks? A nuclear bomb dropped on our soldiers? Would that convince you, or would some measure short of that convince you?



the answer is rather simple.

The Pakistanis are not children and they are not helpless. When and if they really want the drones to stop they will first reduce military cooperation with the US, not increase it. They will secondly stop assisting in cross border transportation of US cargo to Afghanistan, and finally they will simply pull the plug and stop the drones which they could with various methods including jamming devices.

The drones continue to fly in Pakistan because it is in the Pakistanis interest.

You have a very one dimensional view of how countries interact so let me ask you a question.

If the Pakistani Government increases domestica agitation against the drones and even have some ministers stomp their feet about how much they hate it do you think that will put the Pakistanis in a strong or weaker position when it comes to negotiate bilateral assistance deals, just like the massive one that was just signed?

Answer that question and you will be on the track to understanding what is really going on, but for you, I am afraid it will be a long long journey.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #66)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 11:32 PM

85. Well, if you actually have negotiated many agreements with Pakistan and others,

 

And not simply slept at a Holiday Inn last night, you are showing a poor grasp of the situation in Pakistan and how the world works in general.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #85)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:20 AM

90. Well when it comes to creative dissonance you really take the cake.

From 1979 to 1985 I worked for the Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration (ICEM) which eventually became the Intergovernmental Committee for Migration (ICM) and now is known as the International Organization for Migration. During that time I worked in Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia. I eventually became Chief of Operations in Bangkok. Our office was responsible for the resettlement of all refugees and migrants in Thailand as well as migrants from the PRV and Afghans from Pakistans. During the time I was COO we resettled more than 500,000 refugees mostly from Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam but we also resettled 5,000 Iranians trapped in Thailand after the fall of the Shah. During that time we resettled about 10,000 Afghan refugees to the US (eventually 100,000 would be resettled under this program alone, most after I left). These were Afghans with strong ties to the US who sought asylum in Pakistan after the fall of the Soviet supported regime.

Beyond that I used my position (which included negotiating the largest purchase of airline tickets in the world at the time) to do a lot of 'off the books' negotiations with governments that were entirely outside my legal authority. For example there were about 30 Pakistanis who were undocumented migrants to Thailand that were in the Thai immigration jail. Thai practice is to make immigrants pay a fine that accrues daily. These 30 were stuck there for years, completely indigant and had no way out. I was able to get the Thais to waive the fines and the Pakistanis provide tickets to fly them back to Pakistan.

I not only worked with all of these countries but really like them.

You have a childish grasp of what is going on and what you don't realize that it is founded on a basic kind of condescension which the Pakistanis resent. The basis of your view is that the Pakistanis are too impotent to be able to effect implementation of their policy. It is obvious in the facts that I included in the above reply that the Pakistanis have many avenues to implement their self interest.

I answered your innane question and responded to your idiotic slight but you have not answered my question.

Here it is. Don't respond immediately and further demonstrate your complete ignorance of how countries operate. Use a lifeline, call a friend, or use the Cash Cab street call out.

Do you think that if the Pakistani government is negotiating with the US for compensation and bilateral assistance (which they just completed and will again) that they would be able to push for more money if they were able to show that their tacit agreement to the drones had to be done against the popular will of the people and strong opposition? Does the fact that their is domestic opposition to the policy make it more or less likely for the Pakistanis to get more aid from the US?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 02:38 PM

43. DU has sold its soul.

Last edited Fri Sep 28, 2012, 08:19 PM - Edit history (1)

Constant spewing of right-wing propaganda used to be grounds for tombstoning here, but since the takeover of our party by the Third Way, this place reeks, persistently, of right-wing, corporate, neocon propaganda. War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and drone strikes that used to be roundly condemned under Bush are now to be defended and those opposing them smeared and insulted.

DU has completed its ugly transformation into corporate mouthpiece for right wingers in Democrat suits, as the filthy defense of what was roundly condemned under Bush is now not only tolerated here, but dominates threads like this one, while principled liberals leave in disgust.

We are in desperate trouble in this country, when the former meeting places for people who care about democratic values and principles now have become willing mouthpieces for the infiltrated, corrupt, and purchased aspects of our party.

What a sad, sad time we live in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #43)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 02:57 PM

45. In MadHound's defense, this is just anti-war propaganda, not right-wing propaganda.


Yes, Rightists use anti-war propaganda when a Democrat makes war. And Leftists use anti-war propaganda when a Republic makes war. But I believe MadHound was just as anti-war when Idiot was in the White House as he is now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ieoeja (Reply #45)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 03:26 PM

46. Madhound is absolutely in the right here.

Your post is not responsive to what I wrote. Opposing murderous drone attacks in sovereign countries where we are not at war is not "propaganda" by "leftists." It is the principled position that Democrats formerly united behind when a Republican was in office. That a Democrat is now in office does not change the moral abomination of the practice.

It does apparently explain why DU, which formerly tombstoned members for spewing right-wing propaganda in a persistent fashion, now welcomes and protects right-wingers who spend virtually all of their time here rationalizing, justifying, and propagandizing these outrages.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #46)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 05:19 PM

63. Opposing it is not propaganda. Pretending that a public denial of a supposed secret is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #43)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 03:39 PM

47. Wow, such comtempt for DU over a

thread debating whether or not Pakistan disapproves of the drone strikes. That's all this is, parsing the person's words in an attempt to support the Obama is a war criminal narrative.

Here's what's really at stake in this election:

The return of torture as a campaign issue
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021431791

I don't see you making a fuss about that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #47)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 04:41 PM

55. It's not contempt for DU

Sounds more like contempt for the Turd Way DLCers

This member has been solidly supportive of DUers, and I applaud his/her post

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #55)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 04:56 PM

60. "Sounds more like contempt for the Turd Way DLCers "

Sounds like straw man bullshit!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #43)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 04:44 PM

57. Just hold on 'til the election

As of Nov 7(?) the antiwar, anti-privatizing, pro-worker Left will be welcomed back with open arms

+1 to your post

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #43)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 04:51 PM

59. What's worse is that this attitude was entirely predictable.

 

I knew, long before Obama took office, or even won the primary, that if a Dem took over the WH the hypocrisy around here would smell to high heaven.

Thanks for the breath of sanity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #43)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 08:10 PM

68. Question: where do you get the notion that this started with the "third way"?

Not that I agree with continuing our senseless fighting in Afghanistan. But from where do you get this nonsense that the Democratic Party was somehow a peace party before the advent of the Third Way in the 1980's? LBJ and Vietnam? Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs? Truman and Korea? Since the beginning of the Cold War, the Democrats have ALWAYS been far closer to the Republicans in their views on foreign policy than with the anti-war left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #43)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 08:34 PM

72. Constant spewing of anti Dem propaganda used to be grounds for tombstoning here, too.

have a nice tantrum, now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #43)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 09:24 PM

80. This tool has been doing this for years

Nothing to see here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #43)


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 04:57 PM

61. What do you hope to gain with all the anti-Obama

posts during an election season?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ohheckyeah (Reply #61)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 08:45 PM

76. I think they are anti-drone/anti-war posts during an election season.

Discussion of policy changes would be my guess at the gains to be had.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 05:08 PM

62. People continue to float that canard that we accept certain things from Obama we wouldnt under Bush

I opposed the Iraq war under Bush, I supported the war in Afghanistan. I never had a problem with drones being used against Al Qaeda and their affiliates.

I was the same way under Bush as I am under Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 08:35 PM

73. I'm having a serious deja vu moment here.

Didn't I read this thread yesterday, and the day before, and the day before that?

Methinks you need some new material, Madhound. This schtick is stale.

Iraq is over. Afghanistan is ending. Find a new path. Seriously. That's my recommendation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 08:40 PM

74. Womp womp.

I'm just shedding crocodile tears for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 09:16 PM

78. good god, the rationalizations for crimes against humanity in this thread are odious....

The stench of complicity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #78)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 09:26 PM

81. LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 09:21 PM

79. Then perhaps they should take an active role in rooting out the radicals themselves.

And sorry but my problem with Bush wasn't him chasing al-queda and the taliban it was that he completely ignored them and went after Sadam instead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egnever (Reply #79)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 11:38 PM

87. Now that's a nice imperial attitude,

 

If somebody doesn't do what we like, when we like, then we'll invade their sovereignty, their nation and do it ourselves, eh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 10:37 PM

82. This drone policy doesn't work and is unhuman.

176 children died from the drone strikes. I don't care if it's collateral damage, it's murder plain and simple.
How many new terrorists are we creating for each innocent life taken?
We ought to give every strike the name of one of the children killed. Maybe then, people will be less willing to condone such policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread