Barak Obama Wants To Attack Pakistan?
Barak wants to go into a country that we recently funded - Pakinstan.
Pakistan calls Barak ignorant.
"Obama warned Wednesday that if he is elected president, he would order US forces to hit extremist targets on Pakistan's frontier with Afghanistan if embattled military ruler President Pervez Musharraf failed to act."
Seems like another warhawk?
Will this act create more terrorists?
If he is elected, will we be getting another Bush?
I don't support her either because she is a Bush-Lite as well.
We have created more terrorist by being in Iraq than ever before!
Iraqi citizens have been attacking our troops for 5 years now because we went over there and killed their neighbors, friends and families.
The Iraqi citizens=insurgents.
Al Queda=10% of the insurgence!!
Now, if go go over in Pakistan (after we made an allinace and funded them) we will create more terrorist 5 fold!!
They don't attack us because of our freedoms bleedgreen76 s!!
No, you better wake the hell up!!!
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
Remember Pakistan has about 30-50 nuclear weapons and we don't want chaos there. By attacking Pakistan, we will be creating chaos and feeding Al Qaeda's ability to grow and use propaganda to get what they want, more recruitment and hatred towards the Western powers, mainly the United States.
Barrack needs to thoroughly understand General Pervez Musharraf's situation right now, and that he is teetering on the edge of his survival right now. In fact, because Musharraf tried to fire the Supreme Court judge, he has gotten many lawyers, politicians, and Pakistan's citizens very angry along with the militants who probably want to kill him. He has also created a mess with the mosque seizure by the army. After the seizure, days later, there were many suicide attacks that killed over a hundred people. Al Qaeda's #2 leader, Al Zawahiri has also been calling for a lot of support against Pakistan's president.
Pakistan is an ally to the United States presently and we don't want to lose them. Musharraf is our only ally in Pakistan right now, and if he is gone, however it happens, then there is going to be a heck of a lot of chaos and a lot of bloodshed from the Taliban and the Al Qaeda insurgents, and other miltary officials who will try to seize power. This will get the U.S. to become involved and will allow Al Qaeda to point out that the United States is attempting to harm Pakistan and take control of Pakistan. This will bring hundreds if not thousands to support Al Qaeda's cause of attacking the West, especially the United States.
So, to summarize, this is a very poor decision, and it will create new recruits for Al Qaeda if he does what he is saying now. Actually, just by Obama saying this, he has probably given Al Qaeda propaganda tools to use, to recruit more people. And last thing, I am sure that if the U.S. strikes Pakistan more and more of Pakistan's public will turn against the United States and their dictator president, General Musharraf.
- 1 decade ago
Seems like Obama is talking about doing air strikes within the mountains of Pakistan along the Afghan/Pakistan border, especially if an Al Qaeda target/base has been spotted. I doubt if he means a ground occupation of Pakistani soil but I am just speculating.
The irony is, if there is another ground attack on U.S. soil, there may be public sentiment to go after the terrorist, wherever they may be, even if that is targeting on Pakistani soil. I believe for the time being, the lack of another 9/11 is holding public sentiment in check.
- sagacious_nessLv 71 decade ago
You're suprised that Pakistan would object? They love Bush's approach of 'winning hearts and minds' by pumping $750 million of our taxpayer dollars into tribal regions of Pakistan where Al Quaeda is hiding out. The way I see it, Bush's plan runs a high risk of Al Qaeda getting their hands on some of that money and using it to fund attacks against us.
As for Obama, I don't see that he's talking about war with Pakistan. Sending troops could very well mean covert ops and some crack shots... to me, that's a much sounder policy than playing 'footsie' with a two-faced Musharraf or using conventional warfare against rebels. Neither of those strategies has worked well for us in fighting terrorism.Source(s): Common sense and... http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/world/asia/16pak... <EDIT> Think carefully now... bad answer votes could indicate that you're in favor of putting our money where terrorists can get their hands on it, rather than taking action against Al Qaeda. I see 2 of you so far that seem to feel that way. Interesting!
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Obama ahsn't said anything the Democrats havn't been saying--he was just more blunt.
No one wants to attack Pakistan. But--think back to 2001. We wanted to go afteral-Qaida--but the Taliban were protecting them in Afghanistan. The world supporte dus in going in anyway.
Now--6 years later--Bush is the one, along with his buddy in Pakistan--who is giving al-Qaida sanctuary. All Barack Obama is doing is putting them on notice that the party is just about over.
In other words--its the Democrats--not Bush--who want to go after America's real enemies, instead of sacrivicing Amrican lives trying to suppress the people of a country Bush invaded without cause.
Bush "cut and ran" in Afghanistan--and has kept up his cowardice while al-Qaida has had 6 years to rebuild their strength.
All Obama has said--again--is that its the liberals--NOT the neocons--who want to attack our real enemy.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 1 decade ago
I'm surprised Obama would say that considering he has such a strong base of anti-war supporters. I suppose it will gain the attention of many war-mongering democrats and republicans...but probably will not win over any libertarians.
Maybe he can say this because he did not receive any special interest gifts?
- Anonymous1 decade ago
what hes saying is we have evidence that the Taliban are training people in Pakistan ... and he would like to stop fighting civilians in Iraq and fight the Taliban in Pakistan ... and whats more hes right (lol, we never should have been in Iraq in the first place) and this is a move that Army generals have been calling for for some time, but Bush doesn't listen
This is a political move yes, Obama is trying to say he wants to do what the Army generals want to do, and not what Bush has been doing
... but spin it however you want
- 1 decade ago
the only thing that obama is doing is trying to win people support. He know that more than half of the country is against the war in iraq and rather go after al-queda in pakistan and afghanistan. So to win support, that's what he is saying he will do. At the end, he will not do ****. Democrats don't care about outside the U.S. affairs. Thanks to Mr. Clinton, we are in deep crap after his 8 years of being president.
- FrankLv 61 decade ago
No. There is a difference between attacking Pakistan and attacking known and established terrorist havens inside the country of Pakistan whether they give us permission or not (which is what he said).
Nice try though. What are you, a Hillary supporter?
- firey_cowgirlLv 51 decade ago
I have been debating who is the better of the 2, Barrack or Hillary. This comment by Barrack has just turned my vote over to Hillary. We don't need anymore wars going on right now. I have 3 family members in the middle east right now and a 4th one heading over in October. I've personally had enough and I want my family to come home.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Go after the ones who actually were responsible for 9/11 or some two bit dictator who was no threat to us. What a choice.
Musharrif can be made to cooperate.