Bush: Obama will invade Pakistan

[Always Neutral]

China can squeeze Americas balls easily and destroy it's economy if it attacks Pakistan. Who will America borrow from to fight a war against Pakistan? Definitely not China.

Besides, American troops and influence at China's backdoor will spur China into action. Any invasion of Pakistan by the US will give India a great opportunity, so India will jump in, causing China and Iran to jump in as well, and Russia which is aching for a war by buzzing UK and US ships with it's bombers will also jump in. WWIII will start.

All these are reasons there is no way in hell the US will dare to even send one troop across the Pakistani border without our permission, which they will not be getting under any circumstances.

Dear SS,

I read most of your posts with interest as they always carry substance and U avoid bias and hence I am very suprised at your take of the above events.

Firstly I don't think USA is down on its knees in Iraq.

Secondly All the US Presidential hopefulls talk about Pakistan is for their own
countrymen and not some policy benchmarks. Infact they are just stating the present but unstated policy of Bush. ie in the event of OBL living in Pak territory or in the event of the nukes (how ever unlikely it sounds) falling into the hands of LM brigade they will not hesitate to take those elements out without Pakistani permission if necessary. In both these scenarios they will be on the side of Pakistan and not against it.

On your thesis of China jumping in to save Pakistan is way of the mark. China has never intervened in any such action on behalf of regimes closer to home so why will they take on USA militarily and reverse their tremendous economic progress ?

As regards the point of having US troops in Pakistan may galvanise the Chinese I doubt as USA already has substantial not adverstised presence in Pakistan and by all reports the US considers Pakistan Army a reliable friend not an enemy.

Lastly in the event of a US attack (not invasion) I doubt any asian country can take on the pre-occupied US Eagle let alone defeat it.

Regards

 

[Always Neutral]

true, america's to bankrupt right not to make any move. besides, pakistan is not iraq, it has one the world's largest populations.

China and iran won't need to jump in. If hindutva fever becomes worse, and india tries to invade pakistan, they will be nuked.

Pakistan has the world's largest population of what ?

Regards

 

[Spring Onion]

Oh guys forget who will attack Pakistan i think Americans are concerned more with their taxes and the quality of life the new govt will offer rather than deciding polling their votes on the basis of a statment by Bush or anyone.


BTW Bush has lend support to MacCain

 

[Spring Onion]

Former President Bush backs McCain By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
4 minutes ago



HOUSTON - Former President George H.W. Bush endorsed John McCain on Monday, a nod of approval from the Republican political dynasty's patriarch that sends a strong signal to a GOP establishment wary of the Arizona senator.

ADVERTISEMENT


"No one is better prepared to lead our nation at these trying times than Sen. John McCain," Bush said, standing alongside the Republican nominee-in-waiting in an airport hanger. "His character was forged in the crucible of war. His commitment to America is beyond any doubt. But most importantly, he has the right character and values to guide our nation."

McCain, in turn, said he was deeply honored by Bush's support. "I think that our effort to continue to unite the party will be enhanced dramatically by President Bush's words," he said.

Since effectively sealing the nomination when chief rival Mitt Romney dropped out, McCain has been working to convince the fickle and influential conservative base of the Republican Party to get behind his candidacy. He's seen some progress with, several high profile Republicans from the party's establishment endorsing McCain in an effort to unite the party while Democrats continue to fight for a nominee.

President Bush is backing McCain through his body language, with protocol demanding that he not swing explicitly behind the candidate with a race still technically — and only technically — in progress.

His father's endorsement, which follows one from former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who is George W. Bush's brother, is a further nudge by GOP chieftains for conservative activists to get over their distaste for McCain and for rival Mike Huckabee to get out.

Without mentioning McCain's chief standing rival by name, the elder Bush suggested that he wasn't sending a signal to Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor. "I did not come here to tell any other candidate what to do," Bush said.

Bush also called criticism by the right flank that McCain is not conservative enough "grossly unfair."

"He's got a sound conservative record," Bush said.

McCain has drawn the ire of some high-profile conservative pundits and others for what they call infractions against the party. McCain twice voted against Bush's tax cuts. He pushed a campaign finance overhaul that critics said restricted their free speech rights. And, he has worked across the aisle with Democrats on issues like an eventual path to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants — heresy in the eyes of many hard-core Republicans. (AFP)

Former President Bush backs McCain - Yahoo! News

 

[MIG_ACE]

War on terror is just a Hoax .There is no Terror.

How blind can one get.

Forget the rest of the world.

Do you even know how many bombings there have been in your own country lately?

 

[maqsad]

How blind can one get.

Forget the rest of the world.

Do you even know how many bombings there have been in your own country lately?

The original gist of the statement was that fighting a noun was not the real reason behind the post 2001 "war on terrorism" but rather, this war was just the excuse to legitimize it for the common public in the democracies that fund and support this new type of war.

The major unstated reason was to gain strategic depth in the ME and CA using this war as a smokescreen on the grunt level.

 

[S-2]

"The major unstated reason was to gain strategic depth in the ME and CA using this war as a smokescreen on the grunt level."

With bases available in Diego Garcia, Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Kuwait, S.A., and Bahrain prior to 9/11 we'd already amassed a substantial presence providing strategic leverage without need of a WoT. With troops in both northern and southern buffer-zones of Iraq BEFORE 9/11, we didn't need anyplace else to already be beautifully positioned between Iran and Syria.

No. This is very poorly assembled and idle speculation. The rationale doesn't stand in light of the available evidence to the contrary.

Not unusual with your posts.

 

[maqsad]

It is not speculation that GW Bush ordered the invasion of Afghanistan to hunt down Osama Bin Ladin. It is not speculation that AFTER the invasion and occupation the commander in Chieif then said something to the effect of "oh well you know what, this war will go on for decades at least, there is no end in sight". It is not speculation that before the 2003 Iraq invasion GW Bush insisted that some mysterious and invisible WMDs existed in Iraq which nobody could track even with the advanced technology available to the CIA and the Pentagon--every unbiased individual on this planet now accepts the WMD excuse as a fraud to get into Iraq PHYSICALLY and start building bases. It is not speculation that a few months before the Iraq invasion Colin Powell had publically stated that Iraq posed no sort of military threat.

There is plenty of available evidence that anyone with a clue can piece together to conclude that the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan have an agenda which is not officially stated.

 

[HAWK7]

Well, Mr.Obama can only keep dreaming regarding attack on Pakistan
After all, Pakistan is not like Iraq or Afghanistan!