Poll: Military action against Pakistan?

Should the US take military action against Pakistan for supporting terrorists?

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 18.2%

  • No

    Votes: 16 72.7%

  • I wish the whole world would blow up so we could have peace.

    Votes: 2 9.1%
  • Total voters
    22
  • Poll closed .
GracieRuth

GracieRuth

Permanent Fixture
MBTI
INFJ
Enneagram
7
The Pakistani government recently told the US that it has no intention of pursuing the terrorist group that attacked our embassy, placing them in violation of UN resolution 1368, "supporting or harboring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts will be held equally accountable." This is added to other ugly facts such as Al Quada having a stronghold in Pakistan, and the unlikelihood that the Pakistani government was unaware of Bin Laden living in one of their cities. Now the US is talking about taking "stronger action..."

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...istan-for-act-of-war/articleshow/10131309.cms
 
"Stronger action" is the only concept the US understands. That's why it gets into such messes and encounters as many terrorists as it does that want to take action against it.

Please, US. I don't care if you think you're supporting our interests, your actions against terrorism in other nations only ever leads to the murders of innocents and the destruction of the quality of life of those who live in the nations you invade.

Not another country, haven't we killed enough already? Are we going to stop being the terrorists, ever?

"War on terrorism." Ha. If that were true, we'd be targeting ourselves.
 
Hell no.
 
Delicate situation. Islamabad once stopped our convoys from crossing into Afghanistan and we were attacked while sitting there like ducks in the water. We must send supplies to our troops, and Pakistan is about one of the easiest methods.

Three billion dollars a year to help us fight terrorism? That in itself is a joke. That needs to stop immediately, but where will that leave us with our supply routes? We have other means, but that would open the door for more assaults against our troops and our contractors there trying to help the country of Afghanistan. Trying, that is.


The ISI has held close contact with the Haqqani network of Taliban all along. We have intel of their collaboration as the attacks against Kabul were ongoing. Can't tell me ISI did not know about Bin Laden, either. ISI has carried out attacks against our ally India.

They want to be able to fill the void as we leave. Key word is as we leave. They are starting a war of political assassinations to further destabilize all we are trying to accomplish there, taking it as far as trying to call us occupiers. Look at what we did in Germany til we left after WWII.


Pakistan is nuclear armed, further spreading nuclear technologies around the Muslim world through AQ Khan(sp?). He is no longer under house arrest and travels freely about. I have a tape showing a Pakistani top General bragging about tipping off Bin Laden many years ago. Many even US critics say the US should have packed and left when Bin Laden was killed, but the story in regards to our current aid to the country involving military and police training, along with everything else, has grown roots and is unfinished.


If Pakistan goes to war with us, they will leave us no choice but to answer the calling. Our Senate has all options on the table at the moment. Pakistan should take this very seriously. We reserve the right to actively pursue terrorists across their borders if they will not take care of it, especially when we are paying them to do so with money we could be using at home.


Russia and China could be helping in a much bigger way in the area, but because of politics and past problems they would rather see us use our resources. I sometimes think they would like to see us fail. Why do I feel that way?


They do not trust our motives, and we cannot trust their help. We leave another group of people to the slaughter if we just leave.
I say continue on but cut the funds to Islamabad. Hope for the best but prepare for the worst; and why are we selling our drones to Turkey the way they are acting? Our leadership needs experience in dealing with these people overseas, not a new boy on the block every four to eight years. We need unity and not division. We lack in so many ways we have shortcomings. I do not trust our current administration in a war with Pakistan.

Read between all those lines. I did not vote because I cannot vote with an explanation.
 
Last edited:
Just get India to invade it for you. They've been at one another's throats forever.
 
hush said:
"Stronger action" is the only concept the US understands. That's why it gets into such messes and encounters as many terrorists as it does that want to take action against it.

Please, US. I don't care if you think you're supporting our interests, your actions against terrorism in other nations only ever leads to the murders of innocents and the destruction of the quality of life of those who live in the nations you invade.

Not another country, haven't we killed enough already? Are we going to stop being the terrorists, ever?

"War on terrorism." Ha. If that were true, we'd be targeting ourselves.
Click to expand...

word

Actually, I don't think military action should be taken against anything, ever, except in direct defense against very direct attack on one's homeland.
 
what interests me the most is that when it comes to possibilities of say liberating burma or tibet through humanitarian military intervention, america's foreign policy is like "who gives a shit, they can rot", but when they feel that there may be even a suggestion of perceived thread to america, they're like "should we make some war?" again and again, it seems like they believe that specifically american agendas and even the lives of american humans are somehow more valuable or worth protecting than any more inclusive international agendas, or the lives of other foreign people who have been invaded or oppressed or abused or whatever.

what also strikes me is when i hear statistics about how many more american soldiers have died in war on terror since the twin towers collapsed, than the number of people who actually died in the twin towers. it seems like an unworthwhile exchange. and it has been so devastatingly expensive. if more lives are lost in fighting terror than in being attacked by terrorists, wouldn't it be better to spend the money on actual legitimate defense - patrolling domestic shores for example. and even apart from that, on improving the quality of life of actual american citizens - sending them to college, providing medical care to people who can't afford it, and so on? or even basic adult literacy programs, perhaps?

the perceived benefits and priorities for spending seem so incredibly distorted. partly because proponents of these aggressive viewpoints seem so unwilling to engage with comparative benefits of possible alternatives to war. they seem filled with rage, intoxicated with it, overwhelmed with the certainty of it, unable to see beyond it. even more than rage, perhaps a sort of impotence, an inability to face up to limitations of human control over this world.
 
Pakistan is so unstable that this isn't surprising. No I don't want the U.S. to do anything except better protect their embassy in Pakistan and continue to put pressure on Pakistan to pursue these murderers. A trillion-dollar war is not the solution.
 
Well if somebody fucks up your embassy, you gotta fuck them up. If you let it slide, they're just going to keep coming at you. I don't disagree with military action here. Although, I think minimal collateral damage to Pakistani civilians needs to be a priority, and an effective plan for what to do with the country after the Paki government is overthrown needs to be formulated and executed well.
 
invisible said:
what interests me the most is that when it comes to possibilities of say liberating burma or tibet through humanitarian military intervention, america's foreign policy is like "who gives a shit, they can rot", but when they feel that there may be even a suggestion of perceived thread to america, they're like "should we make some war?" again and again, it seems like they believe that specifically american agendas and even the lives of american humans are somehow more valuable or worth protecting than any more inclusive international agendas, or the lives of other foreign people who have been invaded or oppressed or abused or whatever.
Click to expand...
Can't really blame the US for that though. They're protecting their own interests, not the interests of others. That's very common in human nature. People are inherently very selfish. Maybe another poll should be put up, with a question along the lines of "If you had the opportunity to sign a 4 year military contract, for training and deployment for humanitarian military interventions only, would you sign? What if it were your family and friends, would you expect them to sign up?"

what also strikes me is when i hear statistics about how many more american soldiers have died in war on terror since the twin towers collapsed, than the number of people who actually died in the twin towers. it seems like an unworthwhile exchange. and it has been so devastatingly expensive. if more lives are lost in fighting terror than in being attacked by terrorists, wouldn't it be better to spend the money on actual legitimate defense - patrolling domestic shores for example. and even apart from that, on improving the quality of life of actual american citizens - sending them to college, providing medical care to people who can't afford it, and so on? or even basic adult literacy programs, perhaps?

the perceived benefits and priorities for spending seem so incredibly distorted. partly because proponents of these aggressive viewpoints seem so unwilling to engage with comparative benefits of possible alternatives to war. they seem filled with rage, intoxicated with it, overwhelmed with the certainty of it, unable to see beyond it. even more than rage, perhaps a sort of impotence, an inability to face up to limitations of human control over this world.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. The idea is to prevent future attacks.
 
War is bankrupting the US, both morally and economically. Self defense, yes, but no more wars.
 
Kill 'em all and let God/Allah sort them out. We need to wipe the slate clean and start over again; I'm convinced that there's no way to repair the f*cked up parts of this world anymore.

Oh, and I don't mean have the US kill them all. I mean an astrological "event" that would kill ALL of us. Let the one celled organisms start over again and see what they can do.
 
GracieRuth said:
The Pakistani government recently told the US that it has no intention of pursuing the terrorist group that attacked our embassy, placing them in violation of UN resolution 1368, "supporting or harboring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts will be held equally accountable." This is added to other ugly facts such as Al Quada having a stronghold in Pakistan, and the unlikelihood that the Pakistani government was unaware of Bin Laden living in one of their cities. Now the US is talking about taking "stronger action..."

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...istan-for-act-of-war/articleshow/10131309.cms
Click to expand...

This is why America is the A-hole of the world! Americans are not the problem, in fact they are normally very friendly and understanding, but Pakistan is in no way violating resolution 1368. Military action in Pakistan would be worse than Iraq; there isn't even oil. Al Qaeda has a 'strong-foothold' in many places - nearly all of the middle east - so you can hardly declare war for that... also the US government was unaware of Bin-Laden's location for many years.

All country's have their problems, but America seems to know no course of action other than declaring war on whomever 'dares to offend them' ('sarcasm').
 
War is typically profitable and lulls the masses into focusing on conflict rather than solidarity.
 
AzulSoul said:
This is why America is the A-hole of the world! Americans are not the problem, in fact they are normally very friendly and understanding, but Pakistan is in no way violating resolution 1368. Military action in Pakistan would be worse than Iraq; there isn't even oil. Al Qaeda has a 'strong-foothold' in many places - nearly all of the middle east - so you can hardly declare war for that... also the US government was unaware of Bin-Laden's location for many years.
Click to expand...
When you have an embassy in another country, you are reliant on that country to protect it. If that country refuses, then I would consider that aiding and abetting terrorists.

All country's have their problems, but America seems to know no course of action other than declaring war on whomever 'dares to offend them' ('sarcasm').
Click to expand...
Well if you ask someone nicely to stop aiding and abetting terrorists, and they refuse, what else can you do? You can talk to someone nicely all day long, but if they are uncooperative, then so much for that.
 
Lerxst said:
Kill 'em all and let God/Allah sort them out. We need to wipe the slate clean and start over again; I'm convinced that there's no way to repair the f*cked up parts of this world anymore.

Oh, and I don't mean have the US kill them all. I mean an astrological "event" that would kill ALL of us. Let the one celled organisms start over again and see what they can do.
Click to expand...

By f*cked up parts of this world I assume you mean the US? The most f*cked up of them all. If anything, the astrological event would do the most good targeting this nation... the atrocities this country has committed. :(

But yes, sometimes I do ponder to myself something exactly like that "wipe the slate clean." At the current rate we're using up non-renewable resources and making the Earth uninhabitable, perhaps we won't have to work terribly hard at this. It's astounding the rate of consumption and waste humans are engaging in nowadays, myself, admittedly, included.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top