What's new

Obama, Hillary clash over US strikes on Pak soil

Adux

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
3,856
Reaction score
0
Obama, Hillary clash over US strikes on Pak soil

Wednesday, August 08, 2007
20:38 IST

Blog this story



Washington: Democratic White House hopefuls Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton clashed over his readiness to order military strikes against militants in Pakistan as she said making one's intentions known is not the way to go about foreign policy, especially for a presidential candidate.


As he faced criticism from Clinton who mocked him as naive on Foreign policy and being irresponsible, Obama defended his controversial remarks and repeated what he said last week "if we have actionable intelligence on al-Qaeda operatives, including bin Laden, and President Musharraf cannot act, then we should. Now, I think that's just common sense." The remarks had triggered an outcry in Pakistan.


But Clinton immediately took Obama to task at the debate hosted by the AFL-CIO federation of trade unions in Chicago saying "telegraphing" on what the US may or may not do in the face of actionable intelligence on targets in Pakistan is not the way to go about foreign policy.


"I don't believe people running for president should engage in hypotheticals," she said, while admitting an attack might be merited on the basis of actionable intelligence.


"I think it is a very big mistake to telegraph that, and to destabilise the Musharraf regime which is fighting for its life against the Islamist extremists who are in bed with Al-Qaeda and (the) Taliban," she said.


Senator Clinton also warned that Washington would have to be mindful to the implications of American actions on the government of President Pervez Musharraf especially having to keep in mind that Pakistan has nuclear weapons and these might fall into the hands of the al Qaeda.


She indirectly told Obama "you shouldn't always say everything you think if you're running for president, because it has consequences across the world."

© Copyright 2006 PTI. All rights reserved.


Help us with our research, click here

And some people thought George W Bush was stupid.
 
well He is.He just got some really good advisers IMO.
 
OAKLAND, Calif. - Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama said Wednesday it's critical for Pakistan to be a constructive ally in fighting al-Qaida, one week after threatening military action to hunt down terrorists if President Pervez Musharraf doesn't act.
Obama declined to criticize the Bush administration's policies on Pakistan, and expressed sympathy for Musharraf, who faces a growing militant backlash in his Muslim nation.

"President Musharraf has a very difficult job, and it is important that we are a constructive ally with them in dealing with al-Qaida," the Illinois senator said.

Obama did not repeat the most incendiary line from his foreign policy speech last Wednesday, when he promised: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

That pledge set off ripples of resentment in the relationship between Washington and Islamabad, prompting Pakistani officials to warn against U.S. incursions into their country.

President Bush was vague on Monday when asked whether he would consult with Pakistan before chasing al-Qaida leaders into Pakistan. Last year, he offered a clearer answer, saying he could not send thousands of troops into Pakistan to search for Osama bin Laden without an invitation from the government. "Pakistan's a sovereign nation," Bush said then.

Asked Wednesday whether there was any difference now between his position and the Bush administration, Obama twice sidestepped the question, once saying he did not know Bush's stance and then saying he did not speak for the White House.

Obama repeated his insistence that, "We can't send millions and millions of dollars to Pakistan for military aid, and be a constant ally to them, and yet not see more aggressive action in dealing with al-Qaida."

Bush recently tried to ensure just that, signing into law a measure that ties U.S. aid to Pakistan to progress in combatting militants.

The closest Obama came to directly criticizing the Bush administration on the matter was to cite a report in The New York Times that said then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had called off a raid against al-Qaida leaders in Pakistan in 2005, despite having actionable intelligence.

"The American public needs to understand these issues because part of what's at stake in this next, upcoming foreign policy debate is the need to shift resources out of Iraq, in part to attend to these problems," he said. "If the American people don't understand that this is where the real threat is, that we're on the wrong battlefield right now, then we may get confused and elect a president who continues down the wrong road instead of the one that's really going to make a difference in terms of our security."

In Islamabad, a spokesman said Musharraf's government is not ruling out imposing a state of emergency because of "external and internal threats" to Pakistan and deteriorating law and order in the volatile northwest near the Afghan border.

Tariq Azim, minister of state for information, referred to recent military action against militants in northwestern border areas that he said had resulted in the deaths of many soldiers.

He also said statements coming from the United States, including Obama over the possibility of U.S. military action against al-Qaida in Pakistan "has started alarm bells ringing and has upset (the) Pakistani public."

Obama spoke to reporters after spending the morning with a home health care worker, Pauline Beck, as she made her rounds in Oakland. The senator helped clean a house, and said afterward it had reshaped his views on health care and unions.

He also said it was more gratifying work, in some ways, than working the halls of Congress.

"It actually was kind of liberating. When you're in the Senate you spend all your time talking," he said. "When you're cleaning out some cobwebs or you're mopping the floor, and you wring out the mop and you see the dirty mop water, you know that you actually accomplished something."

Obama was the fourth Democratic presidential candidate to participate in a program sponsored by SEIU, the service-workers' union.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070808/ap_on_el_pr/obama_pakistan_2
 
so its always open secret that USA is not pakistan true friend , just they have a carrot n stick policy , and on the other hand pakistan always accept this so called "friendship" ,i think now is the time to deal with USA as iran is dealing .and USA threat to attack pakistan soil is just a dream n there stupid thinking , i cant understand their facts n figures about pakistani defence is so wrong .its always clear that PAKISTAN will not allow USA to do that kind of act ,and if they forcefully do this than they will face the concequences , some USA think tanks are saying that it was mistake of USA to target iraq n afghanistan first , there must be attack on PAKISTAN first ,,,,,,,, he he he .,,,,,,,,,i can only say stupid people always give stupid arguments ...
 
so its always open secret that USA is not pakistan true friend , just they have a carrot n stick policy , and on the other hand pakistan always accept this so called "friendship" ,i think now is the time to deal with USA as iran is dealing .and USA threat to attack pakistan soil is just a dream n there stupid thinking , i cant understand their facts n figures about pakistani defence is so wrong .its always clear that PAKISTAN will not allow USA to do that kind of act ,and if they forcefully do this than they will face the concequences , some USA think tanks are saying that it was mistake of USA to target iraq n afghanistan first , there must be attack on PAKISTAN first ,,,,,,,, he he he .,,,,,,,,,i can only say stupid people always give stupid arguments ...

You mean having A Muslim country as an Ally, yes its true the more they attack the more isolated the US becomes within the Islamic states (thats if the Arab don't suck up to them and figure thier tatic of divide and conqure)

and it is true that Neo cons thought that attacking both afganistan and Iraq was a mistake

Also you sound as if Pakistan can take on the US !
I will remind You that America is a super power and have supplied milatary equipment to Pakistan, and that they have establish bases in Pakistan ?

Launching certain targets on Pakistan to cripple her with Cruise mislle and that
just because america havent used the nuke in 50 years doesn't mean they won't use it again
LAUCHING IT BACK IN THEIR YARD
also heard of the Global Hawk ?

Even as the war on terror plods on the US still have tricks up its sleeve to match and devestate Pakistan

Bottom line is we are no match , they still have an impressive firepower when it comes air strike due to ground assault on pakistan seem extremly unlilkly consider the fact that, as mention about Afganistan and Iraq and Pakistan is a Nuke country.
 
Aresenal,
0Hypothetically speaking.

Is Pakistan going to nuke its own terrirtory to stop an advancing US Army?
 
Aresenal,
0Hypothetically speaking.

Is Pakistan going to nuke its own terrirtory to stop an advancing US Army?

Speaking hypthetically, No but Pakistan may test out a nuclear weapon to sound off warning to anyone pushing for an invasion. There are very many other ways to warn off before actually using a WMD. Planners in Pakistan would most probably keep things at a conventional level because the use of WMD would result in immediate response against the entire country.

For Pakistan it will be bad, but for the US it would be an even bigger fubar.
 
Is Pakistan going to nuke its own terrirtory to stop an advancing US Army?

No it hurt India more then Pakistan. This will hurt Indian US nuclear deal and region economy..:azn:
 
Aresenal,
0Hypothetically speaking.

Is Pakistan going to nuke its own terrirtory to stop an advancing US Army?

Thats an interesting question, one that needs further analysis to be answered though I'm not the right person to be analysing it. Depending on the intensity the air raids against our bases and survivalibility of our forces nukes may come in at some point. We simply don't have conventional power to last longer than a week against the mighty and superior US!

We do have developped sub-kiloton nukes which can be used against forwarding US troops incase territory is compromised. Invasion will probably occur from Balochistan and NWFP, both are scarsely populated.
 
that will be satellite guided invasion, not even combat aircraft will involve and will be surgical strike with lowest collateral damage .
 
In the hypothetical case of a war, wouldn't Pakistans nuclear weapons be the first target of American strikes?
 
No it hurt India more then Pakistan. This will hurt Indian US nuclear deal and region economy..:azn:

Honestly lets have a good discussion, Indians wont get involved with any American mis-adveture in Pakistan, so lets just talk about America and Pakistan. Lets imagine a scenario, that pakistani's are convinced that Indians are postively not involved.
 
Thats an interesting question, one that needs further analysis to be answered though I'm not the right person to be analysing it. Depending on the intensity the air raids against our bases and survivalibility of our forces nukes may come in at some point. We simply don't have conventional power to last longer than a week against the mighty and superior US!

We do have developped sub-kiloton nukes which can be used against forwarding US troops incase territory is compromised. Invasion will probably occur from Balochistan and NWFP, both are scarsely populated.

Neo,

Beach Landing is American Forte. Karachi They would prefer that though it might be more crowded. If Americans does Pakistan, it will be in an extreme scenario, an human rights and geneva convention will take a back seat. They would let the population go out of control like in Iraq.
 
Speaking hypthetically, No but Pakistan may test out a nuclear weapon to sound off warning to anyone pushing for an invasion. There are very many other ways to warn off before actually using a WMD. Planners in Pakistan would most probably keep things at a conventional level because the use of WMD would result in immediate response against the entire country.

For Pakistan it will be bad, but for the US it would be an even bigger fubar.

Lets keep the Hypothetical scenario open, cuz it will never happen in my opinion.

How will it more fubar for US than pakistan?
IF at all Americans does decide to attack against Pakistan, Nuclear testing is not going to change their course of action, especially when we have a hypthetical scenario like a 9/11 type attack originating from Pakistan.
Planners in Pakistan have no other option than keep it in a conventional manner, for if it is unconventional you might have ICBM's raining and US doesnt even have to be in the same part of the world.
 
Several dozen Baburs should wipe off the entire American fleet from the Persian gulf/Arabian sea. Non-Nuke warheads of course. Heck Pakistan is almost never going to wait for an American first strike. We have similar military doctrines infact. Like America, Pakistan strongly believes in first strike. If the conditions seem like America wants a fight, it will probably get one.

None of the Arab states would give bases to America to attack Pakistan. If Israel decides to do so... Several missiles would be heading their way as well. If India does so, it will probably get nuked in all of its known Nuclear facilities first and then everywhere else.

The reason I give such a radical result since an invasion of Pakistan is a doomsday scenario. We will probably get nuked back, but hey we are anyway going to loose the country, why hold back?

Anyway, best defence against Americans... Missiles. Cruise missiles.
 
Back
Top Bottom