Trend in Pakistan looking dangerous

Watching events out of Pakistan, I’ve grudgingly come to the conclusion that before Barack Obama’s first term is over, we will probably have American troops fighting on the ground in Pakistan in significant numbers. I’m putting together a piece, probably for Sunday, explaining why.

Just to be clear, I’m not advocating such a step and I do hope I’m proven wrong. But it seems to be where we are inexorably headed, given the apparent inability of Pakistan’s government to defend itself and its possession of nuclear weapons. That is a far more dangerous challenge than that posed by Iran, for example.

126 comments Add your comment

I Report/ You Whine

March 31st, 2009
12:01 pm

Oh yeah, let’s square off against a 33,000,000 man army, there you go.

I told you the libs were dying to get rid of the United States, have I ever been wrong?

Talk about uniting all of the terrorists against us, geez.

Truth

March 31st, 2009
12:02 pm

You may be right, Jay. We cannot let those Muslim Terrorist get the nuclear weapons. This is the War on Terror!

The Voice

March 31st, 2009
12:05 pm

WOHA…..didn’t your boy promise to bring all the troops home? Oh wait…he is leaving 50,000 in Iraq and he has sent a total of 14,000 and now 7,000 to Afganistan. What happened…..DID HE LIE TO YOU?

George American

March 31st, 2009
12:06 pm

We will send the Pakies pack’n. Go America!

Cherokee

March 31st, 2009
12:12 pm

This again points out one of the tragedies of our misadventure in Iraq. We’ve spent billions and billions there, that should have been spent actually fighting terrorists, rather than pursuing pipe dreams in Iraq.

MChammer

March 31st, 2009
12:16 pm

The Bush Administration dropped the ball badly in Pakistan from day one. They absolutely refused to get tough with Musharaf long after it became obvious that he was not only allowing terrorist to inhabit his country, but was doing absolutely nothing to control rogue elements within his own military and intelligence services that were directly supporting them.. Bush/Cheney were more concerned with playing kissy face with Musharaf when they should have been stomping on him with both feet. Pakistan has been ground zero in the war on terror from day one. 4000+ dead in Iraq while Osama and the boys were living it up in Pakistan. Bush/Cheney tough on terror? LMAO! How many of these incompetent’s messes will the new administration have to clean up. Bush/Cheney will go down in history as the gang that couldn’t shoot straight on anything.

Copyleft

March 31st, 2009
12:31 pm

Wrong as usual, wingnuts. Obama promised to end the war in Iraq, which he’s doing. “Bring them home” is a vastly oversimplified, not to say simpleminded, misstatement of what he actually promised… and is now delivering.

Waiting now for the inevitable Corporal-style comment of “Whoa! Obama’s fighting terrorism! Betcha all those kooky appeasing liberals are ticked off at their savior now, since they never wanted to fight terrorism….”

It’s just so easy to skewer right-wing ignorance when they never bother to arm themselves with any facts in the first place.

Midori

March 31st, 2009
12:41 pm

I told you the libs were dying to get rid of the United States, have I ever been wrong?

with each and every post.

ByteMe

March 31st, 2009
12:50 pm

Whiner: Jay’s not saying we’re going to be attacking Pakistan, but fighting there. BIG difference.

I think it’ll be a fool’s errand; better to go in and destroy their nuclear capabilities before wasting time trying to tame the untamed frontier. Leave that for the locals to fight out, but let’s keep the danger level down for the rest of the world.

caz1158

March 31st, 2009
12:52 pm

Voice-No he did’nt lie,he got bad intellgence.

Mike

March 31st, 2009
12:55 pm

MChammer –

Can you be more specific on what you mean when you say that Bush “should have been stomping on Musharraf with both feet” and tell us if you have similar complaints about Obama not “stomping on Soomro” with both feet?

Or is the just the latest excuse for you to bash Bush?

Mike

March 31st, 2009
12:57 pm

caz1158 –

What bad intelligence are you talking about? Or is this just another empty zinger with no basis in reality?

ByteMe

March 31st, 2009
12:58 pm

I find it ironic that the rightwingnuts complained during election season that Obama would create a disaster in Iraq by shutting everything down quickly and leaving. Now that he’s winding things down as he said he would — over 16 or so months — they’re complaining because he’s not leaving fast enough.

Do wingnuts really do irony or just fall into it by mistake?

RB from Gwinnett

March 31st, 2009
12:58 pm

What happened to “all the world will love us” when Obama takes charge? You mean the same people who hated us and bombed us repeatedly during the Clinton administration still hate us even though Obama’s in office now? Gee, maybe if you have a shred of honest in you, you’ll realize Bush might not have been the cause of this hatred after all, hmmm?

I told you kookaid drinkers the troops wouldn’t be home a day sooner under Obama than if McCain had won and I was right. You’ve been had tools.

caz1158

March 31st, 2009
1:04 pm

Mike-A little humor,sort of like your attempt or lack of.

Midori

March 31st, 2009
1:06 pm

LOL!!

Like someone needs an “excuse” to bash Chimpolini!!

@@

March 31st, 2009
1:11 pm

Again, jay…..the difference here is that Obama is going in fully aware of what awaits.

Just wait until the terrorists pull a nuclear India into the fray.

American troops caught in the middle.

caz1158

March 31st, 2009
1:13 pm

RB-You will never get the SHEEP to admit they were wrong.Just think we only got 3 years and 6 months of complete incompetence. Wait, I can hear another Bush bash coming. Sorry SHEEP He’s gone now you’ll have to actually put blame in the correct area.

Bud Wiser

March 31st, 2009
1:16 pm

The Pakistanis already have nukes. Just pray they have the sense not to use them, although the disputed borderlands with India have cause great grief there already. Toss in an Obamaraid over the border, and hold your ears. (On a side note, that should be a relatively easy function for the PLOTUS; have you ever seen a front view of a Hummer with all of the doors open?)

fearless fosdick

March 31st, 2009
1:16 pm

I Report/ You Whine..You write ” Talk about uniting all of the terrorists against us, geez.”

Whine, I believe Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld already accomplised that feat!

Peadawg

March 31st, 2009
1:19 pm

Sending MORE troops overseas…even MORE change I DON’T believe in. Keep up the lies Obama!

Gregg

March 31st, 2009
1:20 pm

Didn’t you right wingers say that Obama didn’t have the gumption to fight terrorism. Now that Jay (not Obama) mention going to war you decry why we shouldn’t. We went to war with Iraq ASSUMING he had nuclear weapons and the BIG difference here is we know for a fact they they are there. The you dumb ape nuts, what do you propse he do? Wait until they fall in the wrongs then go in? Many of you have no clue and just parrot what your talking heads tell you to parrot. And the organ grinder best friend i guess you ought to know since your momma likes playing with organs huh?

Gregg

March 31st, 2009
1:23 pm

I Report/ You Whine you sound scared! when we picked on little Iraq you were all for playing the bully role. Now that we someone our size you shutter and run scared. True cowardice at its best. Espre De Corpe!!

caz1158

March 31st, 2009
1:23 pm

SHEEP-The Pompus,Arrogance responses that are put forth here is what creates so much hatred. Creative and meaningfull dialogue can not be achieved with the “We are smarter than ALL” attitude put forth. And the name calling then starts on both sides.

Taxpayer

March 31st, 2009
1:25 pm

Well, we cannot let India get pulled into this mess. It would put companies like Dish Network out of business. It would devastate our back office, message center, and help desk economy. We would be in total ruin. No one would be able to get an answer to the most simple of questions such as How do I replace the batteries in my remote?

mike

March 31st, 2009
1:25 pm

caz1158 –

Oh, so it was an empty zinger unrelated to reality.

Humor usually has a basis in reality. Otherwise it isn’t funny, as in your case.

mike

March 31st, 2009
1:28 pm

As usual, we see the Bookman blog crowd responding with their typical knee-jerk response: empty zingers, ad hominem attacks, name calling, etc. This is the standard Pavlovian response we can expect. Yawn.

mike

March 31st, 2009
1:30 pm

Taxpayer demonstrates that he is a graduate of the Joe Biden school of stereotyping. How progressive!

Peadawg

March 31st, 2009
1:30 pm

“Oh, so it was an empty zinger unrelated to reality.”

Kind of like that empty suit you call President, huh?

Gregg

March 31st, 2009
1:31 pm

Did Pakistan just get Nuclear power? Listen people as many of you should know you can make plans but they may not all go as planned. if we have to go the we have to go. Somethings are unavoidable and you asses act like the repubs in office have keep every promise made. Go sit in the corner for the next 3 years and 9 months and pout like a little school kid.

Peadawg

March 31st, 2009
1:34 pm

Gregg, that’s true…Republicans didn’t keep every promise. But, we didn’t put them on a pedestal and worship him like ya’ll do to Obama. We can admit when a Republican lies…but ya’ll think Obama, your Savior, is perfect. He’s not God, so stop acting like he is.

mike

March 31st, 2009
1:34 pm

caz1158 -

“SHEEP-The Pompus,Arrogance responses that are put forth here is what creates so much hatred. Creative and meaningfull dialogue can not be achieved with the “We are smarter than ALL” attitude put forth. And the name calling then starts on both sides.”

Well, some of us are smart enough to understand capitalization rules, singular/plural consistency, proper punctuation and other basic grammar ;)

I like how you start your post with name-calling and end it complaining about name-calling. Do you find name calling acceptable? If so, why do complain about it? If not, why do you do it?

Feel free to respond with an empty zinger. That seems to be your standard response.

Gregg

March 31st, 2009
1:40 pm

Mike, I agree he is not and I do not agree with everything he is doing. However we have serious situation in which the majority of your conterparts assume will go away if he takes no action. He is damned if he does and damned if he don’t. Many of the poeple who write in these blogs would rather see Sarah Plain in office but yet can’t tell you anything she did before being annouced as the running mate of John McCain.

Taxpayer

March 31st, 2009
1:42 pm

What if all these nations had their own arsenal of A-bombs and H-bombs and Neutron bombs and all sorts of different missiles and planes with which to deliver them. Then what. I’m sure our ‘Intelligence’ Agencies have thought through many scenarios. I wonder what the outcomes of their scenarios are. Would a few bombs be enough to get people to stop. Would there be some fanatics out there that would keep on bombing until they just plain ran out of bombs. Would the planet be destroyed. What. Or, is all this just something to pass the time and keep us all pre-occupied.

Gregg

March 31st, 2009
1:43 pm

sorry my response was for Peadawg

Taxpayer

March 31st, 2009
1:45 pm

Some people just like to demonstrate their ignorance regarding our nation’s use of cheap labor in India. Then again, nothing new there.

G

March 31st, 2009
1:45 pm

I wholeheartedly support President Obama’s policy. While I revere Pakistan’s sovereignty as a nation, its feet must be held to the fire to ensure that it does not fund, support, or harbor terrorists on its soil and does everything in its power to eradicate these public enemies.

This is something George Hoover Bush should have done instead of going into Iraq.

And I absolutely love to hear President Obama say “Pakistan”.

Gregg

March 31st, 2009
1:47 pm

Taxpayer we can not for any reason let our guards done because that would be a mass suicide. We ave to let them know we are watching and mean business. With the whole world watching and waiting to follow our lead we have to be ready for anything. Obama may have promised to bring our troops home however the world may need them more. I hate wars as much as anyone after serving in Desert Storm and Freedom, however if they feel we will bend they will push until we can bend no more.

Taxpayer

March 31st, 2009
1:47 pm

We also need to try and keep the folks in Pakistan happy. If they get too upset and don’t concentrate on their work, we could end up with three-legged Levis and upside-down zippers and all sorts of just plain weird stuff.

Mike

March 31st, 2009
1:48 pm

Taxpayer -

Sure, because only smart people like you are so informed as to be aware that many jobs have gone overseas to India. LOL

Justify your bigoted comments however you want.

Mike

March 31st, 2009
1:51 pm

G –

You don’t seem to understand Jay’s post. Obama has made no public decision to deploy troops into Afghanistan, despite your clear desire for that action.

The current Obama policy is just a small escalation of Bush’s policy. Of course, if you can explain otherwise, I’d love to hear it.

Taxpayer

March 31st, 2009
1:51 pm

Gregg,

The problem is that we are doing nothing but delaying the inevitable. We are not changing the eventual fact that more and more countries are getting a nuclear arsenal. So, the obvious questions to ask are the ‘What next’ questions. It’s coming and no one is going to stop it.

Rush Limbaugh for President

March 31st, 2009
1:53 pm

Jay,

Our efforts to eradicate Al Queda may be greatly enhanced but aside from maybe a commando raid on occassion I do not think we will have troops on the ground there. That will only happen if Al Queda takes over the Gov’t.

Bosch

March 31st, 2009
1:54 pm

I know this might be a dumb question/statement, but I don’t care –

I’ve always considered it strange that we seem to be the only country in the world that deems it necessary to commit thousands of troops and a bajillion dollars to fight this War on Terruh.

We are not the only country in the world to be the victim of a horrible terrorist attack.

Why is that?

Gregg

March 31st, 2009
1:54 pm

Taxpayer you convict them and not the rich executives that send the business to them. What are they supposed to say? No keep your jobs for your American workers. your bigotry is misguided. tell me do you put those Levis back on the shelf and only buy American made items? You talk about people who wants the very things we take for granted and do not spew you ignorant bigotry on the rich who get richer. Ignorance at it’s best, keep the minions mad at each other and we get richer.

Hillbilly Deluxe

March 31st, 2009
1:56 pm

As Jay says, hopefully it won’t come to that. All you can really do is go with the best plan you can, given the information that you have at the time. Most battle plans go out the window when the shooting starts because the enemy often doesn’t act as was anticipated. We just have to hope and pray our leaders make the right decisions.

Taxpayer

March 31st, 2009
1:56 pm

I am smart but I’m sure that other less smart persons can figure out where the jobs have gone by doing simple things such as look around, read, listen, ask questions. Then again, some people just cannot handle such tasks so they call other bloggers names such as ‘bigot’ just to try and hide from their own inadequacies. Well, it doesn’t work for them. Never has. Never will.

Gregg

March 31st, 2009
1:56 pm

Bosch I trully hate to disagree with you but that was not a dumb question!!!

Dave R

March 31st, 2009
1:57 pm

Watch out, folks! G is getting another tingly feeling running up her leg!

G

March 31st, 2009
1:59 pm

Now, just to inform the unintelligent among us, nowhere in my 1:45 do I mention Afghanistan. Nowhere in my post do I mention deploying troops.

Bosch

March 31st, 2009
2:01 pm

Gregg,

Well thanks. Sometimes what’s in my head doesn’t sound right, and it still doesn’t come out right when I write it out, or sometimes I think it may just be too simple (which again, being in my head, that’s a possibility). That’s too many rights, right? See?

Taxpayer

March 31st, 2009
2:01 pm

Gregg at 1:54,

What are you rambling on about.

Gregg

March 31st, 2009
2:02 pm

I served in the Army for 10 years and one thing I have heard no matter who was in charge we are the world police force. In essence we patrol every country spending money and so call helping that country out. Bosch posed a very valid question as to why we do it. Many of these countries after we rebuild them turn their backs on us and blames us for their woes. Bosch, not to discredit your question, i think a better question would be, If not us then who will do. To me I try to understand it as the prevention is less expensive than the cure.

Gregg

March 31st, 2009
2:03 pm

I apologize I though your commnet was kind of elitist but after reading your later statement I may have rushed to judgement and for that I am sorry.

Gregg

March 31st, 2009
2:04 pm

The last entry was for Taxpayer!

Gregg

March 31st, 2009
2:05 pm

Hillbilly Deluxe @ 1:56 I am 100% in agreement with you. I fear what will happen if we rush into this KNOWING what they have.

Gregg

March 31st, 2009
2:08 pm

Mike @ 1:51 pm! The differnce is he knows what he is talking about as do you. We all know that they have this stuff and we need to make sure they understand if you play with fire you will get burned.

G

March 31st, 2009
2:14 pm

Uh-oh, looks like a troll got caught in the troll trap.

Bosch

March 31st, 2009
2:15 pm

Gregg@ 2:02,

I agree with you – to add to your analogy of prevention is less expensive than the cure – can’t you exercise yourself to death? Or get hooked on pain pills? Or go on a crash diet and which actually starves yourself to death (I know a woman who got that stomach by-pass surgery – lost 150 lbs. – and then died).

If not us who then? Well, that’s the frustrating part – but back to the analogy – have you ever been close to a mentally ill person or a drug addict? You help and help and help, and they keep taking and taking and taking (or in some cases rob you blind) and eventually you have to just say, “enough!” And it sucks and there may be some backlash, but you just have to for your own sanity.

Not trying to be cheeky or anything because I think your 2:02 is right on.

Joey

March 31st, 2009
2:17 pm

Well Jay you have taken on a difficult task. But having watch/read your work for what seems like 20 years, I know you are up to it.

A little reversing of ideals here; a revision of prospective there; then restructure a principle or two; add a couple of redefinitions; and the next thing you know: We are justified, in fact, required to invade Pakistan.

With proper commitment of effort no doubt you can have it ready Sunday.

Taxpayer

March 31st, 2009
2:17 pm

Sometimes, I throw out stuff that can be interpreted in several ways. For example:

Taxpayer March 31st, 2009 1:47 pm We also need to try and keep the folks in Pakistan happy. If they get too upset and don’t concentrate on their work, we could end up with three-legged Levis and upside-down zippers and all sorts of just plain weird stuff.

At first glance, I’m sure that sounds like a cheap jab at cheap labor in Pakistan and that is certainly one way to read it. The more subtle way to read it is to think about what kind of clothing might be needed for the next generation of irradiated humans such as those with extra appendages and other deformations. Granted, the earlier post about India had a different subtle message that had nothing to do with nuclear bombs and some other messages have but one meaning. I’m diverse that way. Anyway, there are no rules from Jay that says I can’t write such things so lighten up out there — or not.

G

March 31st, 2009
2:19 pm

Off topic

Doncha love this idiot? Rep. Zach Wamp – (Rushpublicant-TN) And there are so many ways I could go with that name, but I will refrain from doing so.

Healthcare Is A Privilege, Not A Right

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBXX2K8jqMM

Taxpayer

March 31st, 2009
2:21 pm

Hey, what’s this talk about invading sovereign nations. We do NOT do that sort of stuff…anymore.

Taxpayer

March 31st, 2009
2:22 pm

G,

Perhaps it is time to revoke some politician’s healthcare privileges. Maybe they’ll see the light.

david wayne osedach

March 31st, 2009
2:25 pm

Pakistan is a Third World Muslim country which is suffering mightily because of the global meltdown. They are a nuclear power located between Afgahnistan and India. The U.S. needs to treat carefully here.

Paul

March 31st, 2009
2:28 pm

Jay

This is getting repetitious. I hope you are wrong. But once again, I fear you may be correct.

@@

Nice point about India. I rather suspect many here are not aware India and Pakistan have nearly gone nuclear on a couple of occasions.

G 1:45

[[While I revere Pakistan’s sovereignty as a nation, its feet must be held to the fire to ensure that it does not fund, support, or harbor terrorists on its soil and does everything in its power to eradicate these public enemies.]]

Ummm, do you think America should hold other countries to the same standard and take the same action against them if they don’t comply?

[[This is something George Hoover Bush should have done instead of going into Iraq.]]

What is this ‘something’? Pres Bush (still haven’t read Pres Obama’s memo about a new tone and no more namecalling?) conducted missile strikes and special forces ops in Pakistan. The great Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, even revealed classified information in a public forum concerning our presence (a Predator base) in Pakistan. So what is the ‘something’ Pres Bush should have done? Invade with regular ground forces, as Jay’s column postulates?

Taxpayer 1:51

[[The problem is that we are doing nothing but delaying the inevitable. We are not changing the eventual fact that more and more countries are getting a nuclear arsenal. So, the obvious questions to ask are the ‘What next’ questions. It’s coming and no one is going to stop it.]]

I was rather hoping someone would bring this up. N Korea has developed nukes. Now they’re getting ready to begin long-range missile testing. The Obama Administration has said this poses a threat to the US and Japan as the missile could be used to deliver a nuke and has made noises about shooting down the missile.

You are aware that ‘shooting down the missile’ constitutes an act that falls within the scope of a preventive war? (Jay’s already pointed out a preventive war is one waged to prevent a potential adversary from ever attacking, while a preemptive war is waged when we have clear evidence we’re about to be attacked and we want to get the first strike).

I’ve been waiting for this to come up because it’s been in the news for days and days, yet I’ve not heard one Obama supporter take issue with a preventive war, or act of war, against N Korea.

I realize, based on what you said yesterday, that since this is something that may happen in the future and hasn’t yet happened that you won’t comment on it. :-)

But if anyone else wants to, I’m quite interested.

Bosch 1:54

Because other countries know we will and other countries (Russia, Spain) make waaay too much money dealing with enabling countries.

G

March 31st, 2009
2:30 pm

Taxpayer,

There are many, many politicians to whom I would love to say, “Sorry, no healthcare for you.”

G

March 31st, 2009
2:32 pm

Troll alert! Troll alert! And they’re getting dumber by the post.

ByteMe

March 31st, 2009
2:36 pm

Paul: Is shooting down a missle over open, international water an act of preemptive war? Or is it just target practice?

Inquiring minds and all that.

Dave R

March 31st, 2009
2:37 pm

Uhhhhh, G? Healthcare is NOT a right.

A right is something you have without taking from someone else or needing someone else to perform that duty for you.

But then, you wouldn’t understand a simple concept such as that.

Paul

March 31st, 2009
2:39 pm

ByteMe

I appreciate the question, but may I hold off with my opinion until those who castigated Pres Bush but are silent about Pres Obama have their say?

Bosch

March 31st, 2009
2:40 pm

Hi ya’ Paul!

Yes, Paul, some of us do know that India and Pakistan aren’t BFFs, and have come to blows on many occassions. Didn’t Pakistan FINALLY admit those terrorists who killed those folks in Mumbai were trained in Pakistan?

“yet I’ve not heard one Obama supporter take issue with a preventive war, or act of war, against N Korea”

And…….what’s the point? Maybe that’s because some of us do not think you can march around the world and take out all the “what ifs” in the world.

“Because other countries know we will and other countries (Russia, Spain) make waaay too much money dealing with enabling countries”

Uh, yeah, so why don’t we deal with those situations too?

Did you read Jay’s column about Israel the other day when he talked about how long Israel can sustain it’s policies – another 50 years, yeah, but 100? 200?

We need to start revisiting some of that same thinking.

Paul

March 31st, 2009
2:41 pm

G 2:32

Does this mean you follow the ‘liberal line’ of namecalling to divert attention when faced with a question that is problematic to one of your stated positions?

@@

March 31st, 2009
2:42 pm

You leftists might wanna duck, ’cause I’m about to hurl a shoe at you. From one of your favorite links during “Bush’s War”:

President Barack Obama is making the Afghan War Obama’s Afghan War. Careful analysis of UN mortality statistics reveals that 46,000 Afghans have died avoidably in the first 40 days of the Obama presidency, including 32,250 infant deaths due to US war crimes..

Who is the worse terrorist, Obama or Osama? Obama already wins hands down as the worse terrorist by an enormous margin. With Obama backing continuing foreign occupations of Haiti, Somalia, Diego Garcia, Palestine, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, extending US bombing of Pakistan and now permitting US or Israeli bombing of Sudan, Obama is set to take over the mantle from George W. Bush for being the World’s worst terrorist.

All together now?

OUCH!!!!!!

getalife

March 31st, 2009
2:47 pm

Gingrich: We should have Singapore-style drug tests for Americans

They are having a crazy competition on Fox News.

Unhinged.

Paul

March 31st, 2009
2:47 pm

Bosch

Hey there!

Yes, I believe the Pakistanis did admit that. ‘Course, when faced with intercepts it’s kinda hard to deny it. And I think India handled their responses with an admirable level of restraint and diplomacy.

The point, if I wasn’t obvious enough, is that the Obama Administration has publicly floated the idea of a preventive strike against N Korea in order to prevent them from developing a long-range missile in order to prevent them, at some future date, from attacking us or our allies.

I think it’s called ‘waging a preventive war.’ Something that was considered very, very naughty when Bush was in power.

I think we do try to deal with those situations. Through the UN, mostly. But we remember that after we invaded Iraq we found France and Germany were making gazillions selling Saddam weapons and violating food for peace. And we know Russia doesn’t see Iran as a threat but as a really big piggy bank.

That was a sobering article about Israel. It may broaden some thinking if people considered us in Israel’s position with such an outlook – what would we do?

Thanks for the Chuck heads up last night. A lot.

Joe Matarotz

March 31st, 2009
2:48 pm

Finally, here is some good news about Obma’s election. It will be 4 more years, atleast, before we hear anything from that fat slug Michael Moore. Good news, indeed.

Paul

March 31st, 2009
2:50 pm

@@

But I thought “They” didn’t ‘like’ us because of Bush….

getalife

As long as the drug tests ensure product quality, I’m okay with it -

mm

March 31st, 2009
2:51 pm

Jay,

I don’t see that happening. We’ll probably see a buildup in Afghanistan and drone missiles in Pakistan, but not troops.

I want to clear this up for all of you simpleton wingnuts. We don’t put Obama on a pedestal or call him God. You fools are the ones that keep perpetuating that BS. Grow up.

Obama didn’t lie. Unlike Bush, Obama has the intelligence to make decisions as he goes. Bush would make decisions and stick with them no matter what the consequences. Bush couldn’t change his mind, because he could not force himself to admit that maybe he was wrong about something.

G

March 31st, 2009
2:53 pm

Two more trolls caught in the troll trap!

@@

March 31st, 2009
2:54 pm

The predicament Obama will find himself in at the G20 Summit.

To President Obama, this meeting offers an ideal setting, well removed from the White House, and he could not have bargained for a better forum to project himself as the leader of the free world.

But, if Mr Obama pushes too much for more spending by governments, he could face a backlash back home where there are already murmurs over tax money being used to pay massive bonuses to the same company executives that caused this crisis.

In my opinion, he’s left with no options other than those that will reflect badly on him.

‘Ya wanna see where we’re headed? You have only to look at Obama’s cousin, Prime Minister of Kenya — one Raila Odinga.

One might also presume that as Mr Odinga works towards securing his role as undisputed numero uno, his prospects will be irredeemably harmed if his co-leadership leads to ruin and destruction and there is no country left to lead.

Both men are fast running out of time to get the coalition government back on track. It’s time to stop being so defensive and accept the harsh realities.

G

March 31st, 2009
2:54 pm

My list of people who should be denied healthcare grows longer and longer.

Paul

March 31st, 2009
3:00 pm

mm

[[Bush would make decisions and stick with them no matter what the consequences. Bush couldn’t change his mind, because he could not force himself to admit that maybe he was wrong about something.]]

Are you really saying the massive change in US counterinsurgency practice in Iraq in 2007 was same old, same old? Are you really saying his statements about jettisoning views he’d held for years in order to pass TARP is an example of static thinking and action?

Taxpayer

March 31st, 2009
3:00 pm

Paul,

Your comments about shooting down a missile and calling that “preventive” is a good example of why I do not care to use words such as preemptive and preventive without first defining the scenario more completely. For example, I have no problem with taking down a missile once it leaves the air space of the country that launched it since such a launch could be considered as an act of aggression. That is not preemption or prevention — it is defensive. Of course, if they had announced intentions to launch a satellite, then that would be a different scenario.

Paul

March 31st, 2009
3:00 pm

G

You’re not much for indepth discussion, are you?

Mrs. Godzilla

March 31st, 2009
3:01 pm

OFF TOPIC

Has anybody seen any turn out estimates in the NY-20 special election today?

Bosch

March 31st, 2009
3:01 pm

Paul,

You’re welcome about the Chuck thing – she was pretty evil – she was messin’ with Sarah, and that’s not good.

Good post – yes, it is a quondrum about all this pre-emptive stuff and yes, countries do make good $$$ dealing with these “rogues.” But to them, are they “rogues?” Do they care? Couldn’t we make an argument that many business deals come with some pretty rogue elements. And isn’t the word “rogue” kind of James Bondish?

But that puts me back to my first question (and hell, I’ll throw in Israel too). Why are we (and Israel) the only ones who use that pre-emptive thinking. It really doesn’t stop anything – and in many cases back fires in our face (with our image and stuff around the world).

Another question I’ve always had was why do some countries get to have nukes and some don’t – it just doesn’t seem fair and all. I know that again, is pretty elementary, sophomoric, and simple, but hey, it’s something I’ve never really gotten a good answer to.

BDAtlanta

March 31st, 2009
3:01 pm

Now this is using yer noggin. An idea whose time has come:

Pay for Play? Tax Credits for Paid Time Off

Monday 30 March 2009
by: Dean Baker

“Not all employers will opt to take advantage of this tax credit, since it will require some restructuring of work arrangements. However, many employers will see it as an opportunity to provide valuable benefits to workers at little or no cost to themselves. If a substantial number of employers opt to take advantage of this tax credit, then the impact on employment could be dramatic.”

http://www.truthout.org/033109A

Aren’t we always trying to boost the competitive edge for small, growing companies? This would help.

G

March 31st, 2009
3:01 pm

It is so wonderful to know we now have a President who is intelligent, compassionate, and able.

Anything and everything President Obama is confronted with will result in the best choice being made.

George Hoover Bush didn’t know his @ss from a hole in the ground.

Frederick Douglass

March 31st, 2009
3:03 pm

I’m sure this has been mentioned before, but if we’d not been tied up in a wrongheaded fiasco in Iraq for 5 years, and had gone to Afghanistan in the first place—-well you know. I hope no one ever
forgets the men and resources a certain guy caused us to lose, not
to mention valuable time.

@@

March 31st, 2009
3:04 pm

…and then there’s always these great cartoons out of Kenya.

Interesting bunch of bidders at Kenya’s Grand Coalition Auction.

G

March 31st, 2009
3:06 pm

Bosch,

>>Another question I’ve always had was why do some countries get to have nukes and some don’t – it just doesn’t seem fair and all. I know that again, is pretty elementary, sophomoric, and simple, but hey, it’s something I’ve never really gotten a good answer to.<<

I’ve never gotten a satisfactory answer to that question either.

Most likely a troll will not be able to help.

G

March 31st, 2009
3:10 pm

I don’t wrestle with pigs; you just get all muddy and the pigs like it.

jasper

March 31st, 2009
3:11 pm

G – Whiz,

Aren’t you going to take Paul’s challenge? It would be wonderfull to see you actually try to use facts as well as intelligible sentences. Maybe one of the reasons you hate W so much is that he reminds you of yourself. Thanks for keeping it in the gutter bro.

Taxpayer

March 31st, 2009
3:12 pm

Bosch,

One answer to you question about some folks not being allowed to have nukes is that if they did then some countries would have to actually listen to what other countries have to say. I think that scares the crap out of some people.

ByteMe

March 31st, 2009
3:13 pm

Paul: reason I ask about shooting the missle down is that I seriously doubt that NK has the wherewithall to invade anyone unless they steal everything they can along the way. They have trouble feeding people there, let alone having working equipment or spare parts for a full-scale invasion of South Korea. So if we shoot down the missle, is that really “war” or just target practice? War implies that the other side fights back.

China won’t be happy, just because they will have to deal with all the refugees again. So they’ll cut off funding for NK in a heartbeat if NK gets out of hand.

As for how this relates to Pakistan, my guess is that we’ll be invited to join a civil war in order to help secure Pakistan and prevent the war from getting wider, and not initiate the war. I think we should just offer safe haven for the nukes in exchange for tactical and equipment support.

But that’s a guess and things could change between now and then. Your mileage may vary from the way the EPA measures miles per gallon.

Paul

March 31st, 2009
3:19 pm

Taxpayer

N Korea has said the launch is for satellite capability.

I don’t want this to sound snarky, but a full-up test of a long range missile requires… long range. N Korea’s about the size of Mississippi, so if they want to test a long-range missile it will necessarily leave its borders.

Look at it this way: if it was us developing a new area denial weapon (say, the neutron bomb back in the 80s) and we launched it from a S Pacific atoll and a Russian naval system shot it down because they thought deploying such a weapon would give us a strategic advantage in a European war, would we consider Russia’s action… justifiable?

[[I have no problem with taking down a missile once it leaves the air space of the country that launched it since such a launch could be considered as an act of aggression.]]

This is important: Preventive and Preemptive Wars are waged because one party fears the other is being aggressive – and a KEY element is the perceived aggressive party has NOT attacked the other party. The party that wages preemptive or preventive war or strikes ALWAYS thinks they are doing it for defensive purposes!

That is the trap of justifying such actions.

K Korea has not attacked up. Any military action we take against them is to prevent them from attacking us at some future point. Period.

Hi Mrs. Godzilla!

How’ve ya’ been?

Bosch

I thought “rogue” was a Nissan crossover vehicle.

You bring up a good point – countries act in their self interest and see themselves as justified. But there is not always a moral equivalency, even when it appears ‘we did it so why can’t they.”

I’m not quite prepared to say we use preemptive thinking in other than an academic way. But the way the Obama Administration is going, maybe we are… I think Israel’s a good case of justifiable preemption – take the 1967 six-day war. It was incontrovertible Arab nations were preparing to attack. If Israel had waited the outcome would have been questionable as the odds were so overwhelmingly stacked (in a material sense) against them. By striking first, destroying Egypt’s air force and gaining air superiority and moving against Syria, Israel assured its survival.

Too little time, but in the last century we had plenty of examples of preemptive or preventive war. Look at the Japanese strike on the US naval forces in Pearl Harbor.

The other nuke question – I’d love to discuss – there are some very good reasons, mostly based upon the historical context in which they were developed – but I’m almost (optimist) done with this tax stuff.

Corporal

March 31st, 2009
3:21 pm

Jay:

“Obama the War President and Bookman the War Editorialist” !

“Dulce Bellum Inexpertis”

By the way, you can run but you can’t hide …………….

“Petraeus makes stance on torture clear …” Your words but that pesky Army manual still has a lot of torturous things in it!

“The Army Field Manual allows use of isolation for 30 days or more, sleep deprivation, modified sensory deprivation, use of fear/manipulation of phobias, some use of sensory overload, use of drugs in interrogation — all of these are forms of banned cruel and inhumane or degrading treatment.”

This is the Army manual that General Petraeus supports.

Is he still your hero or are you going after him?

G

March 31st, 2009
3:22 pm

And President Obama won’t barf on a head of state’s shoes like Poppy Boosh did.

fearless fosdick

March 31st, 2009
3:23 pm

Spanish Court Begins Inquiry Into Former U.S. Officials’ War Crimes

Rumsfeld, Cheney, Gonzales cancel golf trip to Madrid.